Thursday, 12 September 1985 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. (Budget Debate) Debate resumed from 11 September, 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 benefit; (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 MAHER(Lowe)(10.01) —Yesterday, when debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) was interrupted, I was talking about the appropriations for the Department of Education and Federal funding for government and non-government schools throughout the Commonwealth. In the concluding minutes available to me today, I will try to tie everything together. In every Budget since 1972 there has been enormous Commonwealth financial assistance to government and non-government schools. This assistance is still forthcoming. The Budget which honourable members are debating in the House today contains a very large allocation for education. The Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) has put the schools system on notice that the days of the buckets of cash syndrome are gone; they are finished and the cash cannot keep coming. All members of parliament have seen what the injection of funding has done to schools. In many cases, schools have greatly benefited. Many of the schools I visit are a delight to see and I am sure the same can be said of schools visited by other members of parliament. They are wonderful places to study in and to teach in, and they must be very reassuring for parents. But as I catalogued yesterday, there are many state and non-state schools not only in Lowe but also throughout the rest of Australia where capital works are still lagging behind. I was saddened to read the comments of the Minister after her recent visit to the Torres Strait Islands and the islands in north Queensland. She outlined the appalling conditions of schools in that part of Australia. I know that she has taken immediate action to improve the quality of the school buildings and facilities in north Queensland. Another issue I raised yesterday was that the next step we had to take was actually to test the quality of education in schools to find out what type of education the pupils are receiving. I praised the Government for bringing down a report on schools entitled `Quality of education in Australia'. The Minister deserves full praise. The report categorised schools as government and non-government. The non-government category had been split into Catholic and non-Catholic schools. I think that that is probably not a fair division. It is hard to find much in common between Xavier College in Melbourne and the Christian Brothers College in Burwood in my electorate. At Xavier College, a private school, there is a great tradition that pupils proceed to tertiary education. At the Christian Brothers' a systemic Catholic school, classes end at year 10 and all the boys are then tipped out. They can try to get into a neighbouring systemic school-if there is one and if there is a vacancy-or they can go to a state school, to a private school, to work, or on the dole. As I said last night, unfortunately a number of the boys do go on the dole. Others get jobs which are well below their potential and their capacity. I want to touch on the problem that educationalists are reluctant to face despite all the funding and the appropriations; that is, that schools are not all the same. This report acknowledges that there are problems in schools where the majority of pupils come from families in which English is a second language and there is no access to English language books or newspapers. But no allowance is made for this. Class sizes are the same in every state school, in every systemic Catholic school and perhaps in all the private schools whether the children all come from professional families, white collar families, blue collar families or from families where no-one speaks English at home. Schemes are funded by the Commonwealth in the Budget for teaching English as a second language. Many of the pupils speak English; it is just that they have no access to any resource material at home. There is no support in the home for their English language educational attainments. All the surveys show that the parents are very highly motivated. They want their children to go on to tertiary education and to stay at school and they are staying in school throughout Australia except in the electorate of Lowe where the three systemic schools all end at year 10. But in other parts of Australia there is retention and the retention rates for girls are better than for boys. Over recent years the situation has been reversed, but there is this problem. I believe the educationalists do close their eyes to it. In New South Wales the state system the State department would never employ specialist teachers in primary schools to teach music, art or physical education. Another problem that educationalists will not recognise is that if school children have no English language support systems at home, classes should be smaller. Allowances should be made for this. I can see the problems. I believe many of these children do not qualify for tertiary education as they should because of high class sizes. I believe that we should improve the quality of education more and more with the passage of time. The Government has done much to improve the buildings in schools, to improve teacher education and teacher training, but it should be improving the quality of the teaching amongst children from ethnic families perhaps with smaller classes. Special provisions should be made in areas where there are very big migrant populations. I commend the Bills to the House. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr WATSON(Forde)(10.08) —I wish to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) and the Budget which was brought down by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on 20 August. We are told by the Government that this Budget lays the foundations for another year of strong growth. It is a Budget for growth and one which is fairer for Australia. The Treasurer has surely heaped praise upon his own performance. I would like to speak about the realities that face Australia and to evaluate the Budget in terms of its impact upon the real situation. To do so it is worth outlining the framework of critical issues that any government would need to address. I ask the Treasurer whether this Budget helps in resolving some of those issues. The first issue to which I refer is the fact that, as Australians, we are living beyond our means. This can be clearly seen by looking at the number of tables which are found within the Budget Papers. For example, in Budget Statement No. 2, table 21, we see that Australia's external debt has risen from $7 billion in 1980 to $52 billion in 1985. As a percentage of gross domestic product it has risen from 6.3 in 1980 to 25.1 in 1985. Looked at in terms of servicing Australia's external debt, interest payments in 1979-80 took 4.8 per cent of Australia's exports of goods and services. However, by 1984-85 it required 14.4 per cent of exports to service our interest payments. When one combines interest and capital repayments one finds that in 1979-80 debt servicing took only 8.3 per cent of the exports of goods and services. However, by 1984-85 it took 33.6 per cent. In other words, for each dollar of export earnings we now require 34c simply to pay for the interest and to repay the capital on our overseas debt. Despite what some Government members-including the Treasurer-might say, it does not matter whether this is public or private debt. Either type of debt requires future commitments of hard earned overseas income to service it. Similarly, when we look at our public sector borrowing requirement, which is set out in table 13 of Budget Paper No. 2, we see that it rose from $4.1 billion in 1980-81 to nearly $12 billion in 1984-85. During that period it grew from 3.1 per cent of our gross domestic product to 5.7 per cent of our gross domestic product. In a similar vein, public sector outlays as a percentage of gross domestic product rose from 38.6 per cent in 1980-81 to 44 per cent in 1984-85. Whichever significant statistic one looks at, Australia is no longer paying its own way in the world. A question which naturally arises is whether this Budget helps address that issue. The Treasurer has argued that this Budget has significantly reduced the Commonwealth's deficit. To be fair, the Treasurer's stewardship has improved. The deficit is definitely smaller than the record deficit of the previous two years. However, in absolute terms the raw facts are that the amount of government borrowing will increase and that in this financial year the deficit will be some $5 billion. This is the third highest deficit ever. Both the overseas deficit and the domestic deficit are scheduled to increase in absolute terms. This Budget does not reduce the need for future generations of Australians to pay for the debts of this generation. This Budget does not mean that future generations will experience lower taxation. This Budget means that future generations will be subject to higher taxation to help pay for the expenditure of this generation and, in particular, the record deficits of this Treasurer as he has heaped them upon Australians for each of the last three years. The second issue that needs to be addressed is Australia's inflation rate. If one looks at the relationship of the Australian dollar to the United States dollar and then compares the Australian inflation rate with the United States inflation rate one sees a significant parallel. Firstly, over the last few years the Australian dollar has deteriorated vis-a-vis the United States dollar. Secondly, it is noticeable that the United States inflation rate has been significantly lower than the Australian inflation rate. Over quite a few years the Australian inflation rate has been greater than the United States inflation rate by at least one per cent per year on a compound basis. The Treasurer claims that this Budget and the totality of the Government's policies are leading to a reduction in inflation. The facts are significantly different. The Australian inflation rate is still significantly higher than the inflation rates of our major competitors such as West Germany, Japan and the United States. A key factor, and one which is stressed by the Treasurer in his Budget Speech, is the Government's determination to seek a modification of the current wage fixing arrangements so that the whole nation can benefit from the recent change in the value of the Australian dollar. There is an assumption in this remark that the Australian economy is one where prices are under control and that, just for once, a devaluation effect will flow through. In fact, a disturbing aspect of the recent consumer price index figures is the extent to which they indicate that inflationary pressures are deeply entrenched in the Australian economy, irrespective of the devaluation effect, to which I will return in a while. The latest consumer price index figures show an economy with inflation buried so deeply in its midst that it will not be removed by a once only discounting of the CPI. The March 1985 quarter's seasonally adjusted growth in prices shows a 1.9 per cent increase. In the June quarter a 2.6 per cent seasonally adjusted increase is shown. This compares with inflation rates of 1.8 per cent and 1.3 per cent respectively 12 months earlier. When one looks at the seasonally adjusted estimates for the major groupings within the CPI one sees that only the transportation grouping and the recreation and education grouping have experienced exceptional increases in the June quarter. As the Confederation of Australian Industry has pointed out, this is highly significant because it is precisely these two components which have risen more than the others which are directly affected by devaluation in a way in which no other components are. Let us consider firstly the transportation grouping. This was pushed up significantly by the quarterly increase in the price of automotive fuel. Because of the parity pricing policy, as soon as the Australian dollar price of imported crude oil goes up so does the Australian price. There is no need for crude oil actually to be imported for the domestic price to rise. Secondly, in the recreation and education grouping, one-third of this component is composed of holiday travel and accommodation, which includes as part of the domestic CPI the Australian dollar price of hotel rooms at overseas destinations of Australian tourists. The result is that the moment the Australian dollar falls this component of the CPI increases. Movements in these two components are distinct from the manner in which devaluation effects occur in all other components. In the other components of the CPI prices will move only as old stock is replaced by new, imported goods and as the prices of these imported goods increase. This takes time. Even though the dollar fell significantly in February and March, most of the price effects will probably not be felt until the September and December quarters of 1985. The implications are clear: The underlying inflation rate already existed in the June quarter of 1985. The forthcoming wage increase will simply compound the problem that Australia was already starting to feel. The inflation rate will increase as the full effect of the devaluation drives through the economy, and the 2 per cent discount suggested for April 1986 will not reduce this significantly. Inflation is increasing and it will have further detrimental effects on Australia's economy and its international competi- tiveness. The third issue that needs to be addressed is the question of the rigidity of the Australian labour market. This rigidity is reinforced by the Hawke Government's subservience to the Australian Council of Trade Unions. This subservience has been demonstrated time and time again, whether it be at the National Economic Summit, at the Taxation Summit, in the Queensland power dispute or in the Mudginberri dispute. But perhaps it was no more clearly reinforced than in the Treasurer's Budget Speech where he made it quite clear that this Government was bound to work within the accord. Subsequently, it has become clear that the Treasurer even capitulated on his much vaunted statement in the Budget that in the next two wage indexation cases the Government will argue before the Full Bench of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission that the price effects of the depreciation of the Australian dollar will be taken into account. Let us turn to the accord to see what it really means to Australians. Let us look at what the lowest number of disputes in 17 years really means; the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) keeps reminding us of this. It means quite simply that if we make sufficient concessions and grant sufficient power in the running of government and in economic management to the ACTU the union executives will behave like good boys and all will be well. In fact the accord is predicated upon blackmail. Employer organisations are constantly being told that if centralised wage fixation is abandoned the unions will extract even higher wage increases out of employers. Implicit in their threats is the fact that they will not be subject to the constraints of law and that they will simply run amok. One can see in this morning's newspaper headlines exactly that kind of threat occurring. Rarely highlighted is the fact that the power of union officers, executive officers, is exercised without concern for the consequences to the rank and file union members of the community at large. Nowhere has this been more clearly demonstrated than in the recent power dispute in Queensland. The Queensland home consumer and the small businessman were needlessly sacrificed by executives of the Electrical Trades Union of Australia. In addition, many ETU members and their families were completely and innocently misled by their union officers and many are still paying a very dear price. The same process is occurring at Mudginberri. There is complete disregard for the rights and reasonable expectations of the meat workers, the owner and the Australian community. However, perhaps nowhere more than in the area of youth employment is the misplaced power of union executives more apparent. The Prime Minister unveiled a youth employment policy which is the height of hypocrisy. On the one hand, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), the Government spokesman for the Australian Council of Trade Unions, maintained that there was no connection between high youth wages and the record number of youth on Australia's dole queues. Yet the Government's Budget initiatives on youth traineeships involve explicitly a reduction in the cost of employing our youth-but, of course, as is typical with this Government, only for a prescribed period and only in a highly regulated way. The hypocritical attitude of the Hawke Government is further demonstrated in the mining industry where one award specifically discriminates against the employment of young Australians by providing that only one junior can be employed for every 15 adults. In other cases, awards require 16-year-olds to be paid adult wages despite the fact that no 16-year-old has the work skills of adults in the industry and thus will simply not be hired. If we are to accept the fact that we can only be governed by acceding to the reality of union power and the blackmail of the accord, I believe the Australian people should be told so. I do not believe that that is what Australians want. The way they will throw off this union yoke is by throwing out the Hawke Government. I would like to address one final issue. The Treasurer stated in his Budget Speech: The recent decline in the value of our dollar on currency markets has restored our competitive edge-it has made our goods cheaper on world markets and it has made it easier for our industries at home to compete with imports. In short, Australia is back in business. The Treasurer has made a virtue of the devaluation. He wants the Australian population to believe tht the devaluation somehow represents a significant economic achievement. The corollary, I imagine, is that Australians should feel sorry for those poor citizens of the United States of America, Japan, Germany and Switzerland, to name just a few, whose countries have strong currencies. A strong dollar, deutsche mark, yen and franc are something that the Treasurer must almost believe represent poor economic management. What utter nonsense that is. The devaluation of the Australian dollar is the international community's evaluation of Australia's prospects. It is a result of its evaluation of Australia's future prospects and current plight. That evaluation is negative and the fall in the value of the dollar simply represents the financial community voting with its feet. No amount of hyperbole on the Treasurer's part can mask this fact. It is a realisation on the part of the financial community that this Government is systematically undermining the climate for investment in Australia. It is a realisation that this Government abrogates to the ACTU its responsibility for leadership. It is a realisation that this Government and the Prime Minister do not possess the internal fortitude necessary to make the hard economic decisions to enable Australia to become competitive without the necessity to resort to further devaluations in the Australian dollar. There can be no denying the fact that Australia's living standards have declined relative to those of our major competitors and our neighbours. This fact of life is slowly but surely dawning on the Australian population. It is this fact which will compel Australians to vote out this Hawke Government. Of course, the major problem facing the Opposition is that, when we return to government, we will be faced with a deteriorating economic situation-one of which many people will despair. It will be an economy facing double digit inflation and high interest rates. It will be an economy in which the incentive to invest will have been wrung out of the Australian small businessman. Despite the legacy which this Labor Government will leave us, I believe that the next Liberal-National Party coalition government will be able to meet the challenge and provide Australians with a real opportunity for future prosperity-one based on hope, incentive for the individual, support for the family, reward for entrepreneurial risk-taking and pride in being Australian. What will the Opposition do when it regains the treasury bench? As stated in a recent speech by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), the first priority for an incoming coalition government will be to deregulate Australia's rigid and centralised industrial relations system. Freeing up our inflexible labour market is the next great deregulatory cause. New jobs in Australia most likely will be created in small enterprises where trade unions are relatively weak, such as the travel and accommodation industry, communications, computer software and small technologically advanced enterprises. At the moment many of these industries are hamstrung by the excessive rigidities of an industrial relations system that mitigates against individual enterprise. The coalition will make it possible for employers and employees to enter into voluntary work contracts, independent of unions, employer organisations and industrial tribunals. These are most likely to come about in small enterprises where relations between employers and employees already are excellent. Secondly, we will have the political courage to exercise expenditure restraint. Such restraint will involve improving the efficiency of existing government operations, cutting out unnecessary duplication within and between the three levels of government and abolishing a number of functions and programs by ensuring that governments do only what it is appropriate for them to do and that government assistance as far as practicable goes only to those who genuinely require it. Thirdly, a Liberal-National Party Government will be committed to taxation changes. Our support remains for income splitting. The existing tax system disadvantages single income families. Whatever changes ultimately are made to our taxation system, it is important that the combination of the taxation system and other mechanisms contain a bias in favour of family groupings. In other words, the tax system should discriminate in favour of those who have taken the responsibility of raising children. The coalition's opposition to a capital gains tax, death duties and gift duties is well known, but needs to be repeated often. The ultimate burden of taxation will be dictated by the total burden of government spending. To the extent that the next Liberal Government will be more successful than any before it in reducing government spending, so will it be more successful in controlling and reducing the total taxation burden. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(10.28) —The honourable member for Forde (Dr Watson) illustrated the deficit fetishism which is unfortunately so common on his side of the House. He noted that there was a sharp fall in the deficit in this Budget, but he ignored completely the fact that governments, like businesses and households, normally have to borrow to cover their investments. Governments borrow to pay for essential improvements in roads, water supplies, sewerage systems and electricity, as well as to pay for public housing and buildings. Businesses borrow to invest; families borrow to pay for their houses. This is normal and desirable because without investment there can be little economic growth and public investment is just as important as private investment. I will reply to many of his other points in a moment. This is an historic week in which to speak about the Budget. There are two obvious reasons for its importance. It is the first parliamentary sitting week for the new Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and it is the week in which the new agreement between the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions for implementation of the prices and incomes accord over the next two years has been debated and endorsed overwhelmingly by the ACTU Congress. For Parliament the assumption of a new Leader of the Opposition and a new front bench appears to be the more important of these two events, but for the people of Australia the new agreement under the accord is likely to be of far greater historical significance, for this agreement is the most important contribution to sustained economic and employment growth and economic security and fairness which the Hawke Government has made since coming to office in March 1983. We are today debating the 1985 Budget; that is, current fiscal policy. Fiscal policy is one of the four arms of economic policy; the others being monetary, international and incomes policies. All must be used effectively if economic goals are to be achieved. The Government has been absolutely clear about its goals-to deal simultaneously with unemployment and inflation, to increase living standards and to improve the fairness with which the economy operates. The achievement of these goals requires strong sustained economic growth and many other supplementary policies. The Government has used all four arms of economic policy to support steady movement towards those goals. In 1983 fiscal policy was moderately expansionary so as to push the economy out of the recession. Growth of real non-farm product picked up from 0.5 per cent in 1982-83, the last year in which the previous Government's policies operated, to 3.4 per cent in 1983-84. In 1984 mildly expansionary policies were continued and the rate of growth of non-farm product rose to 5 per cent. This year there is only slight stimulus from the Budget. The domestic deficit has been sharply reduced to $1.4 billion, which is only 0.6 per cent of our gross domestic product. It is hard to worry about that. However, the economy is receiving a major expansionary impact from the devaluation. Over the course of 1984-85 the Australian dollar depreciated by 17.9 per cent on a trade weighted basis. This gives strong encouragement to the trading sector of the economy as the price of Australian exports overseas falls and the price of imports in Australia rises. As a result there is likely to be a marked turnaround in the current account deficit during this financial year. The Government is relying on the international sector this year to stimulate continued expansion. Monetary policy throughout the last two and a half years has been firm, aiming to accommodate sustained economic growth without facilitating renewed inflation or encouraging further devaluation. All these policies differ from those of the Fraser-Howard Government but it is incomes policy which demonstrates the differences most clearly. The accord between the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Council of Trade Unions was an historic initiative in Australian economic history. The central features of the accord were endorsed by the whole community, through the 1983 election result and the National Economic Summit Conference. The prices and incomes policy has brought security and stability to the labour market-security that real earnings will be maintained and the benefits of productivity growth shared, and stability through reductions in industrial conflict and reduced labour costs. The importance of the Government-ACTU agreement announced on Wednesday last week is that it enables the benefits of the accord to continue for another two years. It is the first time such an agreement has been negotiated by a government in power. The agreement is an historic achievement for it allows the absorption of Australian purchasing power, lost as a result of the devaluation, at negligible cost to wage and salary earners. By offsetting the effects of a 2 per cent reduction in real wages in March-April next year with an income tax cut in September, real after tax earnings will be maintained. At the same time, delaying the productivity case until next year will ensure full discounting of labour costs for the effects of devaluation but will also enable wage and salary earners to look forward to the improved working conditions through the extension and improvement of superannuation arrangements during the following two years. Superannuation improvements will be offset against national productivity on a basis of the equivalent of a 3 per cent increase in wages. It is important to emphasise the benefits of this agreement to both employees and employers. Employees can have the security of knowing that the Government is determined to maintain the value of real after tax earnings and to seek their improvement as far as conditions allow, and that a context for the settlement of disputes with minimal disruption is operating. Similarly, employers can have confidence of the continuation of low levels of industrial conflict, combined with fair and predictable labour costs. This provides a most encouraging environment for continued strong economic growth. Before the agreement was signed the Treasurer (Mr Keating) estimated that in 1985-86 the non-farm product was likely to be about 5 per cent higher than it was last year. The accord agreement enhances the prospects for achieving that rate, as both consumer and investor confidence will be increased. As that growth occurs employment is expected to increase by at least 180,000 people, that is, 2 3/4 per cent growth during the year, further reducing the unemployment rate. Reduction of unemployment is the principal reason for emphasising economic growth. The rate of growth of employment depends on the rate of growth of economic activity. Unemployment is a powerful form of rejection because it implies to each unemployed person that the community does not want and does not value his or her work and that that person cannot expect an income. Even if the community does not intend that, unemployment is the principal cause of poverty and injustice. It involves shattering social costs to the unemployed and their families and massive economic costs to the unemployed and to the whole community, which loses its potential output and which must support them while they are unemployed. Since this Government was elected, 410,000 more people have entered employment and the unemployment rate has fallen from 10.4 per cent to 8.2 per cent. This is still shockingly high, but it is an improvement and one which is expected to continue. Inflation too has fallen from a rate of 11 1/2 per cent in 1982-83 to 4.3 per cent last year. It will increase this year to around 8 per cent, mainly because of devaluation, but the Government-ACTU agreement will ensure that those inflationary effects are rapidly eliminated. Despite these impressive achievements the new Leader of the Opposition continues to advocate policies which caused so much damage when he was Treasurer. The facts ought to lead him to question his assessment of his own record as Treasurer as well as to give credit where credit is due to the current Government, as he promised to do in his opening statement to the House on Tuesday. Australia's economic performance under the Fraser-Howard Government was poor. The Leader of the Opposition may well excuse himself by saying that international conditions were the cause. While it is true that the international economy always has a major impact on Australia, that excuse is inadequate. With his policies Australia's economic performance was far worse than the performance of other Western countries at the same time. The Fraser-Howard Government gave pre-eminence to reducing inflation first. Yet after seven years of its policies little progress had been made. In the year to the December quarter of 1975 the Australian consumer price index rose by 12.1 per cent compared with the average for all Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries of 9.5 per cent. Seven years later, and despite the depressing contractionary policies of the Fraser-Howard Government, the annual rate of inflation had barely fallen. It was 11 percent in the year to the December quarter of 1982, compared with the average for OECD countries of 6.5 per cent. The Fraser-Howard policies achieved next to nothing even for their one narrow goal. Yet the economic cost of the policies was enormous as economic growth was retarded and unemployment exploded. During the seven years from 1976 to 1982 inclusive the real average annual growth of gross domestic product per person in Australia was one per cent compared with the OECD average of 1.9 per cent. That is, the seven years of contractionary Fraser-Howard policies forced Australia's growth rate down to about half that of the average in all other Western countries depite our massive reserves of natural resources and the burst of investment in mining which followed the second oil price shock. In two of those years real income per person actually fell in Australia. The result was that though unemployment increased throughout the West during that period, it worsened far more in Australia than in other OECD countries. In February 1976, 342,000 people were unemployed in Australia, or 5.4 per cent of the labour force-a very similar proportion to the OECD average for that month of 5.2 per cent. But in February 1983, unemployment in Australia had more than doubled, to 747,000, or 10.7 per cent of the labour force-well above the OECD rate of 9 per cent. These results suggest that there were fundamental problems with the Australian economy during those years, and it is certain that amongst those problems were the policies of the Fraser-Howard Government, because that Government introduced a style of economic policy different from that of both the previous Labor and earlier conservative governments. The principal elements of its policies were a cut in public expenditure, deregulating the economy, reducing the size of the public sector and handing its activities over to the private sector, and reducing real wages. Does that sound familiar? These four policies are again the core of the strategy of the honourable member for Bennelong. He has learnt nothing. He is advocating identical policies to those which drove Australia into the deepest recession for 50 years. Let us look at just one of his recent speeches-his address to the National Press Club on the Budget that we are now debating. It was a terrible speech. When describing his own policies, he said that the first priority for an incoming coalition government would be to deregulate Australia's industrial relations system. He went on to advocate reductions in youth wages, despite the fact that youth wages are already far below adult wages. He did this despite the fact that when he was Treasurer in 1981, after he had succeeded in destroying the wage indexation system, there was a wage explosion and labour costs shot up. He must have forgotten that. He seems more concerned with ideological consistency than with learning from experience. The fluency of the honourable member for Bennelong as a media performer should not be confused with the extent of his knowledge about industrial relations. He has never studied nor has he worked on industrial relations. In advocating deregulation of the industrial relations system he is simply extending his ideological preferences to an area about which he knows little. What does he mean when he talks about deregulating the labour market? He has never spelt it out. He has indicated that he will not abolish the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. How, then, does he propose to weaken the Commission's influence? Unions and employers are already able to engage in collective bargaining under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, but few have wanted to do so. The Commission sets only the minimum standards now. What the honourable member calls freeing up the labour market can therefore only mean collective bargaining about over-award payments, which tends to lead to faster wage increases for members of strong unions and, so, to faster inflation. Perhaps he is planning to try to reduce union bargaining strength. But the only way that he has indicated that he could do this is by using the same type of contractionary policies as he used before as Treasurer, which he is advocating again, and which caused such a reduction in the rate of economic growth. Any attempt to do that would cause intense, bitter and destructive industrial conflict. The Leader of the Opposition, in his Press Club speech, talked pleasantly about `expenditure restraint'. What does that really mean? The expenditure constraint about which he talked would certainly involve cutting back public investment, for it is always easier for governments to cut capital rather than recurrent outlays. This would slow up the productivity improving investment required in our road, airport, water, sewerage and power infrastructure. He would cut back on public housing construction while there is a serious housing shortage, with about 140,000 people waiting on housing commission waiting lists. He would reduce the real value of income support and restrict eligibility for welfare benefits even further. That is not courageous, as he claims; it is simply selfish and mean. He is hard-hearted as well as being extremely doctrinaire. The honourable member is also foolhardy, because he continues to advocate `a shift towards a greater dependence on indirect tax'. To continue with that line after the debate this year and the clear strength of community opposition to a broad based consumption tax suggests a rigid determination to apply his own doctrines and a lack of understanding of electoral constraints. Privatisation, linked with deregulation, continues to be his symbolic catch-cries, yet he fails to show how consumers will not be disadvantaged. Privatisation is popular with the share market because of the additional turnover which would be generated and also because of the speculative profits which might occur. When the Thatcher Government sold 51 per cent of British Telecom, the shares traded up to 90 per cent above the partly paid issue price of 50 new pence, allowing subscribers an instantaneous capital gain of nearly double the asset price. Is that unearned profit the kind of profit growth he really wants to see? Privatisation and deregulation of Australia's domestic airline system is advocated in this context and evangelists claim the success of the 1978 deregulation in the United States of America is a good example. However, in an article from Business Economics, distributed recently by the United States Information Service, a writer called G. W. James concludes that, between 1978 and 1984, when the US consumer price index rose 59 per cent the average price of full fare tickets rose 127 per cent, while the average price of discount fares rose 68 per cent. Deregulation was associated with sharp real increases in standard fares. James also says that people living in thinly populated and remote areas-the National Party of Australia should take note of this-say that deregulation has worsened the quality of their air services. So on privatisation and deregulation, as well as incomes policy and every other aspect of macro-economic policy, the Leader of the Opposition is either ignorant of the facts or is choosing to ignore them. If he took a less partisan view of this Budget and associated economic policies he would find them more reasonable and certainly of direct benefit in stimulating economic and employment growth and reducing inflation. This is the conclusion which I am sure is being reached by the vast majority of the Australian community. Mr MILES(Braddon)(10.48) —It is interesting following the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore) because he lives in an area of Australia in which unemployment is approximately half that of the rest of Australia. One of the reasons is that this Government is a centralist-type government which is undertaking a tremendous building program in the Australian Capital Territory. A lot of money is going into the Territory and therefore its people are getting the benefits of a centralist government. The rest of Australia would enjoy having some of that money spent in the States but instead it is being funded into this part of Australia. I believe the 1985 Budget has passed as a non-event to the people of Australia. This non-event has occurred largely because this Government believes that every two or three months it can change the financial way in which it runs this nation. We had the mini-Budget in May. We then had what was supposed to be the real Budget in August and now we will have a package in September. Australians ought to be made aware that it is okay to make changes at the periphery of any Budget but that this Budget contains no basic strategy for Australia. I think it is important that Australians have a strategy which can be adjusted and fine tuned throughout the year. But here we have a government which is making running repairs. Why can it not look into the future and map out a course and a definite strategy for Australia in the Budget every August? Australia has been described variously as the lucky country, the land of opportunity, the land of the long weekend, but over recent years, there has been a change. It has become known as the land of unpredictability, strikes and low productivity. I believe it can now be known as the land of pawns because in this House members of the Hawke socialist Government, who were elected by the people, continually bow and scrape, dodge and weave and use tortuous rhetoric, to say the least, to explain their subservience to the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Mr McGauran —It is a sellout of all Australia. Mr MILES —Absolutely. It was interesting to read the cartoon by Mitchell in yesterday's Australian. It is a very simple cartoon which gives much clarity to the mood which exists in Australia today. It shows a large door opening into a dark room, with the words `President ACTU' and, in little letters, `S. Crean'-I congratulate Mr Crean on his election. Beside the door is our Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and just behind him is the Treasurer (Mr Keating), who is looking rather gaunt and a little fearful. The Prime Minister is saying to him: `Well, here goes-our first day of Simon says. . .' That is how the Australian people view what is going on in this country at the moment. Unfortunately, some of the elected representatives of Australia are not representing the people. They are subservient to the ACTU. This subservience has to be cut. The future of Australia does not lie with unelected representatives in the ACTU. This Government is now trying to protect outdated, outmoded and archaic structures that have become the status quo in society and have been maintained for a good 80 years. This Government wishes to maintain inefficient structures. We can no longer use the term `big is beautiful' in Australia because big government is not beautiful. Big business is not beautiful and neither is the monopoly of big unions, which wield much power. Big corporate bodies, be they unions, governments or private enterprise groups, ignore the small individual. They are far removed from the ordinary citizen of Australia, and they make decisions without regard to the needs of the small person in Australia. The union movement in particular places higher priorities not necessarily on matters such as the welfare of its members but on solidarity. That is the most important thing to the unions. It is very interesting to talk to shop stewards in various companies within my electorate. They say to me that things would be good if only there was not the constant pressure of being bludgeoned to join a union. Hundreds of people throughout Australia say this. If government members do not think that that is the case, they should encourage the unions to adopt an open policy towards union membership. They should let it be free and people should have the freedom to choose whether they want to join. Mr O'Neil —They have now. Mr MILES —That is not the truth. Mr Hand —That is true. Mr MILES —The honourable members who are interjecting know that what I am saying is true. We ought to turn our sights to the record of this Government, because quite often its members come in here and say: `We will go to the next election and stand on our record'. Let us take a fairly reasonable long term view. I have had a look at the record over the last 20 years in Australia, especially the last three years. In that period, the Liberals, for the times they were in office, had an average inflation rate of 7.07 per cent. The Labour governments had a rate of 10.35 per cent-almost 50 per cent higher. One must look at the record over a long period, and I have stated the record of coalition governments in Australia. Over the 15 years of Liberal rule, the unemployment rate for each year, on average, was 4.7 per cent. Under Labor governments the average was 5.8 per cent. Mr Cohen —Did you include the Chifley and Curtin governments in this? Mr MILES —If the Minister had been listening to me he would have heard me indicate that I am dealing with the last 20 years, from 1965 to 1985, and I think that is a reasonable period to look at. Over the period that the coalition governments were in power, the deficit, as a percentage of gross domestic product, was 1.73 per cent. For Labor governments, it was 3.2 per cent. That is almost 100 per cent higher. The Australian people ought to know the long term record of both Labor and Liberal governments in Australia over the last 20 years. Let us take the last six years and look at the deficit and make a comparison with total Budget outlays. Over the last three years of coalition government-the disastrous years of coalition government that this Government refers to-the total deficit was $6.148 billion. Over the last three years, under the Labor Government-years when we have had tremendous economic growth and great vitality for this nation, with the Government spending the present generation's money before we have actually earned it-the deficit was $19.625 billion. In other words, that is three times the amount of the deficit during the last three years of the previous Government. Honourable members opposite might say that that is all very well because the size of the Australian Budget is much greater. Even if we look at the figures on a percentage basis, the Labor deficit is still 100 per cent higher. So the record of this Government is really not so good when we look at it. The basic strategy of this Government has been that union views, particularly those of the ACTU, must be accommodated and that governments must intervene in the lives of the people of Australia; it is their role. Electorally, rural people are few in number and they do not matter to this Government. Therefore, they are largely irrelevant and the application of the assets test shows that. The Government just does not care for the people who are involved in the rural communities around Australia. Because they are not big people this Government is not interested in them. The Government has the basic strategy that the state should have more control over people's lives. The Government also has a set of assumptions which the Australian people ought to know about. It assumes these assumptions that the rewards of private efforts are subservient to the needs of the state. Therefore, this Government feels that it can increase taxes at the rate of 13 per cent, as it has done in this Budget. It does not care about individuals who are working hard but feels that it is important to extract money from those people to use it for government purposes. It believes that the private ownership of capital is often accumulated by fraud, greed or dubious practices. I say to this House that many people around Australia accumulate their wealth or their small amount of capital by genuine hard work, long hours and thrift-contrary to the rhetoric which we hear from the Government that there is a lot of fraud-and the Government therefore criticises people who have accumulated wealth. I think that this Government is issuing a set of medicines to the people of Australia which, if digested and assimilated, they could well do without. The strategy this Government has and its assumptions are totally wrong because they are both dependent on the imposition of regulation on the people in Australia, whereas the goals of the coalition are ones whereby the people will be able to be rewarded for their initiative, creativity, motivation and industriousness. That is the type of Australia we want in the future, not one in which freedom is stifled. The vision of making this country better in the future, I believe, became distinctly blurred on 20 August. Australians are tired of mediocrity, they are tired of socialism, they are tired of the welfare state, they are tired of the handout mentality of this Government and they are tired of half baked options of training schemes that lead to no jobs. People in the electorate, particularly young people, are daily losing their self-confidence and their self-esteem. Mr Fitzgibbon —Do the opinion polls show that? Mr MILES —The honourable member ought to have a look at the young people's poll conducted in July last year by Australian Nationwide Opinion Polls Pty Ltd and what it is saying, and then he should have a look at his Government's policies. Mr Cohen —You don't get elected by public opinion polls, only ballots. Mr MILES —Quite right. I agree with the Minister. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The Chair is reluctant to interrupt this discussion, but I invite the honourable member for Braddon to address the chamber through the Chair. Mr MILES —The situation is that because the people in the electorate do not have jobs and are over regulated they lose their self-esteem, self-dignity and confidence, particularly the young people who are going regularly to get their dole handouts. I speak with young people quite often. I have found that a change is occurring amongst young people in Australia, particularly in community youth support scheme groups, where I speak to them as well. The young people I have visited are saying: `The dole to me is a shackle because the governments really are not tackling the problems facing us as young people. It is a sop to us; it is a shackle to us in our own lives; it gives us no sense of well-being as a person. We would be much happier to go about life if we could work for the dole'. That is what the young people of Australia are saying because they want to be contributors, not just consumers. I believe that says something to us about the future. I would like to turn to two or three points which were mentioned in the Budget about young people and their training schemes, which the Government has outlined. The Government did put some vision into the Budget for young people-some light on the hill, as it were. However, once the slightest attempt is made to analyse the initiatives being taken by the Government it becomes obvious that the light for many young people is going to disappear in 12 months time. What systematic worthwhile training scheme can be established in one year which will give young people the skills, attitudes and the knowledge that is necessary for them to retain a job? Why have apprenticeships in the past taken a period of two, three or four years to achieve? We are often told by educators that the knowledge and the skills required for people going into our society are expanding at a very rapid rate. How then can a year's training really achieve some substantial change to unemployment and the situation that young people face? Associated with this, however, I believe there is a real glimmer of hope coming from the Government; that is, that it would appear that it has finally given up slavishly following the entrenched and largely outdated wages fixing procedures. The Treasurer stated: Trainee wages will be negotiated between employers and unions taking into account time spent at the workplace, and will involve payment of at least $90 a week. That is encouraging because I think that the main factor why young people in Australia have been kept out of the job market is that they have been priced out of the market. There seems to be a change of attitude by the Government indicating that maybe these wages need to be rethought. I think that is a good thing. The most fundamental reason why a much higher percentage of young Australians are out of work is that the unions have actually pushed up wage rates for young people, often in good times. As leaders of this nation, as a parliament, we have to look at these types of issues more objectively and come to grips with them. I believe that the Opposition is definitely doing that at this time. I believe that the Liberal Party and the National Party have in train the policies which will bring about an unshackling of the regulatory nature of Australia at this stage. The coalition looks forward to the twenty-first century. It has a vision that will enable the people of Australia to use their initiative, to get involved in their jobs and get rewarded for the work which they do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr O'NEIL(Grey)(11.08) —Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this important piece of legislation, the Appropriation Bill (No. 1). The previous speaker, the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles), obviously spoke with tongue in cheek and was hard put to put a constructive case against this excellent Budget. However, he did mention something about youth wages which I will speak on shortly. The 1985-86 Budget has been given a whole variety of labels, from `macho' and `tough' to `conservative' and `cautious', but the adjective I like best is `resilient'. It is a Budget that the conservative critics must have found very frustrating because the old easy cliches do not fit any more. The deficit is down to a projected $4.9 billion, government spending is down, but a full program of social welfare has been maintained without cheese-paring. Not only that, but a well thought out youth support and training package planned to dovetail into the education system and work force requirement has been launched on a course that will bring it to full fruition by 1988-89. This youth package is notable not only because it is a salient feature of this Budget but also because it marks the achievement of this Government in becoming the first to produce any kind of integrated policy on youth. It comes at a time when a ready made and simplistic answer to the world-wide problem of youth unemployment is being loudly trumpeted by Australian conservatives. It is the theory that if one makes youth wages low enough one will end youth unemployment. Like most of the other glib solutions to end unemployment in any one specific segment of the labour force, this theory makes no attempt to explain where the extra jobs would come from or, if they are not going to be provided as extra to the present overall job total, we are not being told what precautions, if any, would or could be taken to prevent other members of the work force from being sacked to make way for cheap teenage labour. this wage theory is one of those dangerous ones that have just enough foundation in fact to set them up as plausible cure-alls. Closer examination of this theory reveals so many inconsistencies that we are left in considerable doubt as to how effective such a principle would be in the short term, before we even begin to question either the ethical or the long term values of using it. Overseas studies in countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development have produced quite conflicting examples. In Japan, an increase in youth wages relative to adult wages has not affected Japan's prevailing low rate of youth unemployment. In the United States of America, youth unemployment remains high, in spite of substantial wage reductions. We might well look more closely at West Germany as an example. It has very strong training traditions and a high retention rate in the education system. Teenagers who are employed are, in general, paid a training wage. However, this is in conjunction with a youth training system that is entrenched in tradition and universally accepted. This Government's new traineeship system, which derived from the report of the Kirby Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs, will offer 10,000 places this year and be fully implemented by 1988-89. It is aimed at the 16-year-old to 17-year-old age bracket. By the target year it is also planned that allowances available to 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds, whether in secondary or tertiary education or unemployed, would be on a similar level. It would be in line with the general egalitarian aim of the whole youth plan if it could be found possible to allow students to join pre-vocational courses straight from school with pay, as with traineeships. I am pleased to note that the maximum rate of tertiary education assistance allowance will increase from $44.51 to $47.50 a week for tertiary students living at home and from $68.67 to $73 for those living away from home. The bare sufficiency of TEAS and the absence of any concession for those whose incomes are just beyond the cut-off point for the means test have always been a severe handicap to higher educational standards in provincial cities and rural areas far removed from State capitals. In recent times, in the cities of Port Pirie, Port Augusta, Whyalla and Port Lincoln and in the Spencer Gulf an unprecedented interest has been shown in completing secondary school and going on to some form of tertiary studies. Apprenticeship opportunities have declined in all four cities where rationalisation programs have trimmed work forces in the main industries. So where a readily available local job once presented an all too easy alternative to the more rigorous and very expensive pursuit of higher qualifications, through tertiary education in Adelaide, the picture is now quite different. Local jobs are even rarer than in most other places so there is a greater inclination to look for alternatives. Australia's youth are often subjected to adverse comparison with their counterparts in many other countries because of their relative lack of inclination to follow through to higher education. So if a solid dose of adversity can supply the stimulus necessary to jolt the more complacent members, and their parents, out of their cloud-cuckoo-land casualness, why not? If this Government's positive policies on education can take over from there and induce a lot more secondary students to stay on for the full 12 years, or preferably longer, so much the better. Given this new-found appetite for higher education, it remains to be seen just how much influence the higher student allowances and adjusted means test will have on the lamentably low representation of country districts at Adelaide universities and other tertiary institutions. I have been approached by many families in my huge electorate of Grey who are quite emphatic that the reason for this low representation is expense compounded by distance. These are generally families who are disqualified from receiving TEAS by the means test but who still face very real problems in sending children away to university while maintaining others in other educational areas. The sheer distance factor inevitably imposes expenses in necessary communication and transport, apart from the difference in living costs. Yet these families are rated as no more in need of concessions than others living within a kilometre or two of the university. I accept that, as a practical economy measure for the time being, any projected overall youth allowance has to be means tested where it applies to full time students. I suggest that there is ample justification for some kind of practical recognition of this educational handicap faced by all country residents. Even if this took the form of only a tax concession for expenses above an average level and subject to a reasonable ceiling it would help to restore the balance. It would be positive proof that this Government, in its exhortations to youth to make the most of their educational potential, has the whole of the population in mind and not just those in the coastal belt. On this score it is encouraging to know that an increase of some 20,000 places in higher educational institutions is intended in the 1985-87 triennium. The traineeship system, which is directed primarily at students who have not completed 12 years of education, aims at providing 75,000 places when fully operative by 1988-89. The Budget sets the highly desirable target of achieving by 1989 a commonality between all unemployment and student rates and relativity between age groups so that from then on all can be indexed to maintain both their value and their relativity. The change in principle to keying educational allowances to age groups rather than to educational standards will be welcomed by lower income families, as well as by former students wishing to return for further schooling. The Australian economy is being counted on to produce a 4.5 per cent growth rate next year. It has been dubbed a devaluation-led recovery. The timely floating of the dollar as well as registering a plus for Australia's hard-pressed traditional exports will, it is hoped, give a boost to local manufacturing industry in a swing away from more expensive imports. It is also clear beyond all doubt that the accord has delivered the restraint it promised. The restraint has stayed intact through a two-and-a-half year turn-around in the economy that has seen the profit share rise to 14.4 per cent in the first half of this year, and the wage share fall at the same time from 64 per cent to 58 per cent. Trade unionists, who constitute a large element of my constituents are patient and co-operative people. When they welcomed the accord in 1983 they accepted the straightforward doctrine that the economy was out of kilter because wages had risen too high by the early 1980s and profits had to catch up to restore investment and jobs. When this happened they believed that expanded profits would be reinvested in industry expansion, leading eventually to greater security and purchasing power for employees. The picture they have been seeing is of profits at their highest level since 1973 and of wages taking their smallest share of gross domestic product for the past 15 years. Not surprisingly, trade unionists have been asking when this process of massive reinvestment is going to take place to restore Australia's manufacturing industry. We could do with some of it in my electorate. The accord has imposed disciplines and restraints that many said in 1983 could not last. They have lasted, and they will continue to last for at least the next two years, thanks to the sanity and flexibility embodied in the joint approach to current problems by the Federal Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. We must never forget that a pact such as the accord conveys an even greater obligation to communicate with the rank and file of the trade union movement who have carried this economic recovery, to listen to them and to make sure that they are kept acquainted with what is being done to ensure that other obligations conveyed by the accord are also honoured. If workers believe that they can see a significant proportion of increased profits being put into off-shore investment, or Australian industry, into sophisticated techniques to raise productivity and reduce the work force in one industry after another, they may have serious doubts about where wage restraint is leading them. Having said that, I refer to the Treasury round-up accompanying the Budget Papers for the following reassurance: It would appear that real private consumption grew considerably faster in 1984-85 than was forecast at Budget time last year. Households have not reduced their saving ratios, restraint in award wage increase has been accompanied by strong gains in real disposable income. The principal contributing factors have been substantial increases in employment, to which wage restraint has contributed, and in cash benefit payments. I note in the Budget Statements that Telecom Australia's capital expenditures in 1985-86, excluding its subscriptions to Aussat Pty Ltd, are estimated at $1924m, about $354m higher than last year's. By any standards Telecom would be a ripe plum for privatisation. But in my electorate of Grey even Liberal voters shudder at the thought of it. With a thin distribution of population over a very large area an efficient telephone service becomes a standard necessity not only to livelihood but also, often enough, to life itself. But no protagonist of privatisation has bothered to hide the fact that private ownership would automatically rule out cross-subsidisation, the compensatory process by which zones of high profit, such as capital cities, subsidise the excessive costs of extending services to outer areas. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), the Opposition's shadow Treasurer, has been quoted in the Press as having an interesting if not very reassuring answer to that problem. In the course of a talk to Party members on privatisation, citing Telecom as a good subject for it, he is reported to have said: If remote rural subscribers need a subsidy to maintain reasonable charges, then that can be afforded many times over from the taxation of the profitable private businesses spawned by privatisation. I do not think even the most gullible of the people who are now well provided with services in remote parts of my electorate would be very happy about being left to depend on the remote possibility of that kind of handout. But to talk about remote areas in this context is itself a deception. All operations outside the extremely profitable capital cities' network are run at a loss and could not be expected to be attractive to private enterprise. Last year cross-subsidisation amounted to $500m. This is the amount that would either have to be met from government revenue or extracted from subscribers through extra charges if privatisation was brought in. In effect the big profits would be skimmed off leaving the losses to be made up by users and taxpayers in general. Telephone services outside big cities would become a luxury. The degree of operating loss varies widely. Darwin, Cairns and Alice Springs are in the 50 per cent loss bracket but in more isolated areas average costs of a connection fee can reach $20,000 compared with a maximum fee of $1,300. The Liberal line on privatisation follows the British one: Giving ownership to the people. The Economist, which is no left wing rag, called it flogging the family silver to pay the butcher's bill. The story of British Telecom's takeover by the people rather recalls the early share trading history of Australia's own car. Nearly three million investors took up the offer of shares in British Telecom at a people's price. But such were the windfall gains offered from the very next day that profit-taking had soon reduced the field by more than a million shareholders. With shares rising to more than 150 per cent of the original undervalued sellout price the buy-up by the rightful owners of industry continues. On past experience that is the sort of people's ownership we would finish up with in Australia. We do not need it. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay)(11.25) —I take the risk of incurring the displeasure of some of my colleagues by offering my congratulations to the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil) who has just concluded his remarks. That is not to be construed for one moment as total agreement with all that he has said. He has offered a very reasonable exposition to the House and, therefore, it acquires an added persuasiveness. If more of us could engage in that sort of practice we could possibly attain solutions to our mutual dilemmas at an earlier date than might otherwise be the case. Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1985-86 which is before the House is the product of a Budget presented to the Parliament by a Treasurer (Mr Keating) who has demonstrated an increasing skill in displaying a pseudo-authority. His undoubted skills are robbed of their true reward simply because virtually all his calculations and prognoses are predicated on the presumption that Australia can forever engage in artificiality. The reality of the matter is that Australia's economic dilemma has, in truth, outstripped the talents of those who, over a number of parliaments, have attempted to disguise the fact that Australia has been and is living beyond its means. Honourable members may recall the remarks I made when addressing the House on 18 April this year when I pointed out, not unkindly, that Australians through the good times have lost touch with reality and are mortgaging the future of our children whilst placing our security at risk. Honourable members will therefore understand that I was consequently more than ordinarily interested to read John Leard's article in the Australian on 22 August. In that article, John Leard spelt out the dilemma with which our country is confronted. Two significant features attach to that exercise. Firstly, there has been widespread support within the community for his proposition and, secondly, and perhaps more importantly, there has been very little authoritative comment by way of rebuttal. It may be fairly claimed that it is easy to be wise after the event, but Leard's objectivity, insofar as he attributed responsibility for the disarray to all political parties-albeit to varying degrees-should not be dismissed simply because it is made in hindsight. It is up to the Government-presently a Labor government-to take heed and to take action. Australia's problems demand immediate address. Of course, I must instantly acknowledge that the Government's claim that it inherited problems from the previous Government has some substance. What the Government elects to ignore in making that claim is that the headlong rush to self-destruction by our country was launched during the period of the Whitlam Government and, in turn, has been compounded by the failure of all succeeding governments to reverse the trend sufficiently. It will not escape the awareness of any honourable member in this House that such a dereliction does no more than demonstate the frailty of democratic governments in witlessly accommodating the expectations of the broad electorate whilst not necessarily being as alert to the people's best interests as government could and should be. The expectations generated by the Whitlam Government and the resultant extravagances have conditioned many Australians to believe that profligacy is synonymous with respectability. The simple, undeniable fact of the matter is that if we consistently spend more than we earn, regardless of how laudably compassionate our intentions are, the result is utterly predictable. Yet what do we find? We find a government congratulating itself on a $4.9 billion deficit coming in on target. The artificiality- Mr Hand —That is a bit better than the $9 billion or $10 billion under you. Mr MILLAR —The comment made by the honourable member for Melbourne is well taken but it must be measured against the circumstances prevailing at the time. The theme of what I am offering to the House is this element of artificiality in our address to our common problems. The artificiality of congratulating oneself on a deficit Budget coming in on target is, among other things, similar to the action of governments in creating temporary jobs at the taxpayer's expense and pretending that employment figures in meaningful terms are consequently improved. However, that matter pales into insignificance when compared with the enormous growth in the number of people employed in the government work force. No doubt a substantial proportion of them render services of value. But we come back to the simple question of whether we can afford them. That is the criterion which should determine most of government's involvement and the actions of citizens individually and collectively. It is rather interesting, referring again to Leard's presentation, that on the matter I have just raised he says: We are now one of the most over-governed countries in the world. He contends that Australia has a political and bureaucratic infrastructure which could support a population of 70 million people. He continues: We have one of the highest public sector workforces in the world. Almost 26% of the Australian workforce is employed by government compared to 7% in Japan, 15% in Germany, 17% in the United States and even only 22% in the United Kingdom. He also states: Over the past 10 years the government workforce has increased 10 times faster than the private sector workforce. These Government jobs have basically been created by increased taxes and borrowings. Governments of every political persuasion have intruded more and more into our lives with the result that Government spending is now out of control. Claims of economic growth are continually made by the present Government, despite the fact that a number of adverse conditions are prevailing in our economy. The simple question that most members in this House are asking is: If we are benefiting from incredible economic buoyancy, where is it? Where is it back in our electorates? Where is it in our small businesses? Mr Braithwaite —It is not in the sugar industry. Mr MILLAR —As the honourable member for Dawson says, where is it in the sugar industry or in the primary sector generally? It may be there; but, if it is, the Government will have to work harder to prove the point. Of course, with the skilful use of figures, one can achieve virtually any result one seeks. That leads to the great dilemma which is manifest in this place where undoubtedly, from time to time, people in the gallery sit and listen attentively to a speech from one side which is irresistibly per- suasive and naturally conclude that that must be the state of affairs, only to be confronted with a speech from the other side which is equally persuasive. What is wrong? Clearly they both appear to be right. The truth is that they have not told the whole story. That is often the case with figures presented to create an impression that things are not altogether as they are. The figures may be right but not in a precise context. We have disturbingly high interest rates which detrimentally affect the capacity of business to invest. Of course, this has come about to a considerable extent from the Government's need to draw money from Supply to pay the interest on our borrowings, which are not insubstantial. Sadly, we have the second worst current account deficit of the major countries within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. That is disturbing in the extreme. The magnitude of it can be measured by the comments in the very Budget that we are debating, the Budget of the Treasurer (Mr Keating). It is expressed in a delightfully euphemistic way. On pages 64 and 65, referring to the external account and indebtedness, Budget Paper No. 1 states: Australia's current account deficit during the 1980s has been at levels which are both well outside the range of previous sustained experience and which are-- here is the euphemism-- not viable indefinitely. That, put into more urgent language, simply says that this country is going broke. I have quoted the authority of the Treasurer and the Budget he presented to this Parliament which state that it is `not viable indefinitely'. We are further down the road than we would wish. That extract from the Budget Paper continues: Related to the succession of large current account deficits, there has been a rapid growth in Australia's external indebtedness (increased external debt being, in the final analysis, the counterpart of an expanded current account deficit) . . . Gross external debt rose from $13.9b or 11.9 per cent of GDP in 1979-80 to $68.5b or 33.1 per cent of GDP in 1984-85; . . . . Australia's external debt servicing obligations, expressed as the ratio of interest payments and contractually due capital repayments to exports of goods and services, rose from 8.3 per cent of GDP in 1979-80 to 33.6 per cent of GDP in 1984-85. That is the authority for my assertion that we are further down the road than we would wish to be. Prudence would not permit a continuation of the folly in which we have been engaged. Australia has also suffered during its past year the worst currency devaluation. This must be a bitter sweet experience for the Treasurer because he, quite properly, was accorded commendation and congratulations for his boldness in floating the dollar. It is something that should have been done long before and it instantly provided the barometer to gauge the regard or lack of regard in which we are held by the rest of the world. It was a stark reminder to us that we have to perform or we will slide further and further down the register of OECD nations. If we ignore that clear indicator in the international scene, we will do so at our peril. There is a very real possibility that inflation may increase following the impact on the economy of the depreciation of the dollar, which could possibly result in our inflation rate being at least twice that of the forecast average figure for the major OECD trading companies in 1986. That forecast figure is 3.5 per cent. Of course, inflation is a double-edged sword. In many respects, it offers a temptation to governments in limited areas because they can discharge domestic debts with what has become virtually paper money. But, concurrently, it has a very serious impact on the country's viability in international trade in respect of imports. Business investment as a proportion of GDP in Australia fell to a 10-year low in 1984-85. That is purely a symptom of the malaise which afflicts our country. People must have confidence. Regardless of the field of endeavour in which they are engaged, they must have confidence. That confidence can be developed only by, in turn, confidence in those who diagnose the problems afflicting our country and confidence in our ability to remedy those problems. Confidence is the essential keynote in addressing the problems that afflict our country. The first requirement is, of course, to identify the problem precisely. Unless we do that, we just engage in an exercise of absolute futility. As evidenced in Budget Statement No. 2, the national debt in 1985-86 will `after terms' widen slightly in nominal terms to a figure of $10.8 billion. That represents some 4.6 per cent of GDP. I must admit to being just a little abashed by the language used, namely, that it will `widen slightly in nominal terms'. But what is of concern is that this debt is not used to finance growth that is backed by real productivity; it is used only to finance a higher standard of living. That again relates to the artificiality to which I referred earlier. The disturbing thing about it is that each and every working Australian is presently paying $19 a week just to pay off the interest on that debt. That must be an intolerable situation, particularly when we are faced with escalating indebtedness. The interest on the national debt in itself has assumed staggering proportions. It is the third largest item of government expenditure in the 1985-86 Budget. To the nearest billion, it can be compared with an amount for social security of $19 billion and payments to the States of $13 billion. The interest on the national debt is almost $7 billion. That is a staggering state of affairs when one considers that the interest alone on the national debt is the equivalent of one-third of the income derived from the nation's exports. It is interesting to reflect that in the year 1984-85, when the interest on our debt was $5,600m, that virtually equated with the export earnings from wool, beef and wheat. Our major export income generators virtually were swallowed up just by the need to pay interest. That is a very sobering fact for all Australians to address. Inflation has been the vehicle by which Australian governments have increased tax revenue to meet the costs of increasing welfare payments, which of recent years have included a very large component of unemployment benefits. We are chasing our tail. We are spending more to resolve that which thus far has appeared insoluble because we are using the wrong tactics altogether. Those who have jobs in the system are left to bear the burden of financing huge expenditures by the Government, which is often engaged in nothing more than an exercise in folly. Australians will be paying higher taxes than ever before. In two years pay as you earn taxation has increased by 29 per cent. Some 750,000 taxpayers will be forced into higher tax brackets; 500,000 will move into the 46c in the dollar bracket and 250,000 will move from the 46c to the 60c in the dollar bracket. I am encouraged by the suggestions or rumours that the Government will immediately address this problem and there is some slight prospect of relief in that context in the not too distant future. I hope that that eventuality transpires. Inflation of 6.7 per cent was recorded in the 1984-85 financial year and the indications are that there is a very real probability that it will increase over the next two years. We have to concern ourselves with generating wealth, which essentially comes out of the good earth, be it animal, vegetable or mineral. From there we take it away and process it-we do not produce it as much. Primary industry is terribly important to Australia as a whole. It should not be approached on the simple basis of the ambitions of Tom, Dick and Harry farmers but should be addressed on the basis that it is of essential performance to the good health of Australia. We ignore that truth at our folly. It is not only a question of export market prices with which our primary industries must contend but also the cost input. While costs have been escalating in that area, export prices have been diminishing. So there are two areas for potential relief; market prices might rise or we can do something about reducing the cost input. To those who have been accommodated by maintaining what is regarded as an entitlement, but which in fact is no more than an expectation, I can say no more to them than that they should not stretch their luck; hold fast, work hard and recognise the fact that we all have an interest. There is a mutuality of benefit, regardless of the area in which we are involved, and we can restore this country of ours to good health. We did it once during the years 1939 to 1945 when we put aside our differences and came together and demonstrated what Australians can do in this country. It is scarcely an exaggeration now to say that we are facing a threat as ominous-not with martial overtones, but a threat to our country now and in the future. Mr Cowan —The average Australian realises it. Mr MILLAR —As the honourable member for Lyne interposes, the average Australian realises it and the average Australian is highly amenable to positive direction based on a logical and reasoned assessment of our circumstances by whoever might be in government. I urge the Government and all members of this House to address themselves to the reality of the problems that confront us and not to delude ourselves into believing that we can get out of our dilemma simply by the application of artificial devices. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(11.44) —It is always enjoyable to listen to the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar). I always find his remarks interesting. Certainly at all times he lacks the cackle of the barnyard group which surrounds him. I have great pleasure in coming in to listen to his somewhat more balanced arguments and, even though I do not agree with much of what he says, he presents his arguments very well. In speaking to the third Budget of the Labor Government brought down by the Treasurer (Mr Keating), I address my comments specifically to the youth initiatives announced in detail by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). The youth package is a remarkable policy by the Labor Government which involves a completely new approach to policy development. Drawn together by five different Ministers and administered, in turn, by three different departments, Priority One: Young Australia is the only policy which has the potential to break the spiral of increasing youth unemployment and youth poverty in Australia. It will succeed precisely because it attempts to come to terms with the needs and aspirations of youth from a number of angles. The problems and needs of youth are multi-dimensional, thus we needed to develop a multi-faceted policy strategy. That is what our policy does and this is where it differs so markedly from the pitifully limited line on youth trotted out by the Opposition. I call it a line because its sole answer to youth issues is to cut youth wages. That is not a policy; it is a self-styled recipe for increasing poverty amongst youth and increasing their sense of alienation from mainstream society. It is not the answer and it never will be, but I will say more later on the prescriptions being offered by the Opposition and its new Leader, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard). Poverty and, in this instance, youth poverty, are things about which we on this side of the House are concerned and which we are seeking ways to reduce significantly. I refer honourable members to an independent paper produced by the Parliamentary Legislative Research Service, entitled `Poverty in Australia' and released in July of this year. In the section on youth the paper isolated four key factors which contribute to youth poverty; unemployment, the level of income support, the lack of co-ordination between forms of income support and income tax, and the various forms of income support available to young people. The significance of these four factors was mirrored by Peter Kirby in the report of the Inquiry into Labor Market Programs and in his recommendations which, by and large, form the basis for the Labor Government's policy on youth. The spearhead of that policy is the traineeships concept. Traineeships will provide new and alternative vocational opportunities for young people which will operate side by side with existing vocational preparation methods. Traineeships will be directed specifically towards assisting those 100,000 or so school leavers who will enter the labour market each year with no or limited skills and who are unlikely to benefit from future training opportunities. When fully operational the traineeship scheme will offer nearly double the training opportunities of apprenticeships. The new scheme will operate under guidelines which will reflect the principle of equal participation by males and females and will ensure that at least 15 per cent of places go to young people who are regarded as specially disadvantaged. Other elements of the package are no less important than the traineeships. In the areas of wage subsidy schemes, youth support services, income support and education we have introduced substantial policy initiatives. In this Budget youth measures will lead to additional expenditure of $35m. This amount will more than double in 1986-87 and by 1988-89 is expected to total some $251m. Apart from the specific initiatives which constitute Priority One, the Budget will assist youth in other ways. The continuing improvement in the economy based on the success of the Australian Labor Party's macroeconomic policies will provide spin-offs for youth, especially in improving employment opportunities. The sum of $20m set aside for combating drug abuse this year and over the next three years can also be expected to assist many young people who for a range of reasons become the victims of drug usage. I have no doubt that the future for young people of my electorate will be substantially improved by the implementation of Priority One. As I have said in this place on previous occasions, my electorate contains pockets of great deprivation and poverty. A report by the Legislative Research Service comparing various characteristics of electoral divisions based on the 1984 boundaries, using census data, showed that my electorate had the highest number of unemployed of any electorate in Australia and at the same time one of the lowest participation rates. It also had the second largest number of young persons aged 15 to 24. At the same time, it had the lowest proportion of persons regarded as being fluent in English; the second highest influx of overseas born residents; the eighth largest ethnic population; and the greatest number of newly arrived immigrants from South East Asia, mainly from Vietnam. What a great contribution those people are making to the electorate. Melbourne was one of the poorest electorates based on gross annual income. More than 60 per cent of the population stated that they had no formal qualifications and only 10.1 per cent said that they had any trade qualifications. The average school leaving age was just under 16 years. It should not be too hard to see-even for those opposite-that opportunities are severely restricted for large numbers of my constituents, including many younger members of my constituency. Given that youth, migrants and low educational achievers are disproportionately hit by unemployment it is not hard to understand why there is chronic unemployment and poverty in parts of my electorate. Areas which have been hit particularly hard by youth unemployment include Brunswick, Fitzroy and Richmond. The Commonwealth Employment Service offices of those areas have commented on the increasing length of unemployment for young people and the fact that there is a great shortage of overall positions for young people not requiring experience. In other words the situation facing many young people in my electorate is one which Priority One traineeships will be aiming specifically to address. Likewise government initiatives in education will, I believe, help many young people in my electorate. Much has been said in the education debate about retention rates and the need to encourage young people to remain in education longer. The participation and equity program is designed to assist in this process and it is therefore interesting to note that all government and non-government schools in my electorate are targeted under PEP. While retention rates vary markedly from school to school it is clear that a large number of young people from areas such as Brunswick and Richmond leave school at the end of their ninth year. Of course it is this unskilled group who go on to become the unemployment statistics at the CES offices I have already mentioned. Priority One offers them a viable alternative. There is one aspect of our youth package, in the context of my electorate, which I would like to raise and that is the support given for homeless youth by this Government through the youth component of the support accommodation assistance program. Funding all three sub-programs of SAAP increased by $4.4m in this year's Budget to a total funding base of $32.11m. In addition, a forward commitment of funds of $5m for 1986-87 has been provided. Approximately one-third of all youth services funded under SAAP in Victoria in 1984-85 are located in my electorate-that is 11 out of 32 programs. This in itself demonstrates the fact that, in Melbourne, many young people are without such a basic necessity of life as adequate shelter. The other night we discovered five young people-two girls and three young lads-living in a burnt out double-storey building in the heart of Carlton. They lived on the second floor, which they reached by means of a ladder. At night they would take the ladder up into the top storey with them so that they would not be found or troubled by intruders. These people are now, today or tomorrow, on their way to Adelaide seeking work. That situation is not uncommon in my electorate. We have had instances of people being burnt in rubbish bins or crushed in compactors when bins have been picked up by the garbage collectors, and in Melbourne one finds down most lanes late at night numbers of elderly people and young people. The plight of the young homeless people is a new dimension in this whole question. I am glad that the Government has picked up this matter and I commend it for that. It has recognised their urgent need and has taken action in this area of funding. By contrast, what does the Opposition suggest as an alternative? Before I go on to examine the pathetic excuse for a policy which the Opposition offers on youth, let us just consider for a moment the sad spectacle which these honourable members opposite present. It is abundantly clear that the coalition is now in tatters. The Liberal Party of Australia is wracked by bitterness and division following the events of last week and, unfortunately for proper opposition, its coalition partner is not much better. The back bench is riddled with former Ministers and shadow Ministers who have already seen better days. Just for the record I will read out their names. I have called them the second eleven of the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). They are waiting on the back bench to join him as he jumps over the front bench to take over in the way Bob Menzies and that other bloke, Fraser, did when they stabbed their leaders in the back. Let us have a bo peep at them: There is the honourable member for Fairfax (Mr Adermann) from Queensland; the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie) from New South Wales; the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards) from New South Wales; the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham), who is from the Northern Territory part of the time; the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife) from New South Wales; the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher) from Victoria; the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) from South Australia; the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) from Queensland; the honourable member for Denison in Tasmania; the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter)-let us not forget him-from Queensland; the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh) from Queensland-it is a tragedy that he has been removed from the front bench; the honourable member for Page (Mr Ian Robinson) from New South Wales; the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) from New South Wales; and of course the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) from Victoria. I went through the Northern Territory with the honourable member for Higgins; he is a delightful person to go away with. He has been dumped. That is the honourable member for Denison's second eleven-all waiting, bitter and twisted as they slip and slide on the blood flowing right through the Opposition benches, ready to take over. There is a lot of talent rotting there. I suspect that by the end of this term or in subsequent terms they will in fact have rotted. There is probably more talent on the back bench than currently exists on the front bench. That is a disturbing factor. I get back to youth. The new Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong, has stated on numerous occasions, in the simple way that he puts it, that the key to improving youth unemployment is to reduce youth wages. As everyone on the Government side of the House knows, it is extremely simplistic to suggest youth wages as being the root cause of youth unemployment, but this is what the Leader of the Opposition does. Both the Kirby report and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Review of Youth policies in Australia rejected outright the cutting of youth wages as a policy solution. If the honourable member for Bennelong and his hand selected bunch of blinkered cronies who now make up the bulk of the shadow Cabinet got their way, the youth of Australia would become even more marginalised from society and would be driven even further towards a life of increased isolation, poverty and despair. Just in case the youth of Australia have not got the message, the Opposition Leader has suggested that a supplementary component of the Opposition's policy on youth would be to introduce a form of conscription in which young Australians would be compelled to attend an educational institution in order to receive unemployment benefits. Let me just quote what the honourable member said on this at the National Press Club: I'm not certain that as a condition of receiving unemployment benefits . . . some kind of stipulations about courses of instruction wouldn't have the effect of more efficiently sorting out precisely where the genuine unemployed lie. Not only does the Opposition Leader demonstrate by his remarks his callous disregard for the desperate plight of young people in our country; he also shows just how far out of touch both he and his Party are with what young people want, with what their priorities are. The people of Australia deserve to know just what the Opposition Leader intends to do in the extremely unlikely event he and his Party ever again sit on this side of the House; that what we are now talking about is a clearly defined philosophical alternative from the coalition parties. If we look at the attack on youth which is implicit in what the Opposition has put forward as its youth policy, we see that the basic principles underlying it are reflected in the entire gamut of policies which the honourable member for Bennelong has been proposing to the electorate recently. As he said in a recent address to the Young Liberal Movement in Victoria: Youth unemployment will never be solved unless we deregulate the labour market. Obviously, if one's central aim is as the Opposition has proposed to cut youth wages this can only be done through a deregulated labour market. Thus, we see a close link between these two policies; a link which is equally manifested in the Opposition's policies on reducing expenditure, privatisation, indirect taxation-I repeat, indirect taxation; shifting the burden on to those who cannot afford to pay-social security and Aboriginal affairs. Let us not mince words about what the Opposition is proposing. Right at the top of the hit list is the trade union movement. The Leader of the Opposition is on record as saying that what he and his Party are arguing for is the substantial reduction of trade union influence via the dismantling of our industrial relations institutions and the deregulation of wages and working conditions. In the area of taxation the Opposition Leader has categorically stated that the Liberal Party will introduce a broad-based consumption tax and that he regarded the now discredited, electorally unpopular option C as the most sensible of the approaches canvassed in the White Paper put out during the tax debate. It is quite clear to everybody that the broadly based consumption tax got the flick pass from the electorate. We had a tax summit, we invited the electorate to take part in the process and the electorate rejected option C. We took notice. A broad-based consumption tax would shift the tax burden on to those people who are not able to defend themselves. That is the motive and the philosophy that those people who sit on the other side of the House present to the electorate. In terms of expenditure reductions, the Opposition does not rule out cuts to the electorally sensitive big budget areas of education, health and welfare. We need to know what it proposes in these areas. The Leader of the Opposition is on record as saying that he would abolish the Human Rights Commission, the Prices Surveillance Authority, the Foreign Investment Review Board-to enable his mates from overseas to come in and do what they like-and that he would be looking closely at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Housing Loans Insurance Corporation and the Australian Industry Development Corporation would be sold off to private enterprise with a similar fate likely for a great number of other public enterprises which not only have proved their efficiency but which also secure important social objectives and affordable services for the Australian people. What is the Opposition going to do with Telecom Australia, Australia Post, Trans Australia Airlines, the Commonwealth Banking Corporation and other enterprises? We need to know the answers. Another group which would come under attack by the Opposition is single parents. We also know the Opposition's attitude to the unemployed and to Aborigines. The Liberals started a riot at the front of this Parliament last year with their shadow spokesman; so we all know what they think about Aboriginal people. The sick are also under notice from the Opposition that they will be dealt with severely, scrutinised and crushed if need be. The architect of this fundamentally obnoxious set of policies is none other than the ex-Treasurer, the newly elected Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong. This man, who more than any other was responsible for the total collapse of the then Government in the months preceding the 1983 election, whose economic theories led to the greatest mismanagement of the economy this country has ever seen, and who now offers only a more extremist version of those discredited policies, has been entrusted by his colleagues-or at least some of them, not all of them, that is clear to everybody-with leading his Party and the coalition forward to the next election; that is, if he can hold it together. The coalition can no longer lay any claim to representing the views of ordinary Australians, nor indeed the views of most traditional Liberal Party members. It has gone down a rotten and bloody road of self-destruction. The people of Australia do not want what the honourable member for Bennelong and his team have to offer. That statement will be proved at the next election. Thatcherism and all that it represents is not for Australia. I conclude by drawing honourable members' attention back to the Budget and particularly to the Priority One package which I am pleased to support today. Mr SHACK(Tangney)(12.05) —The 1985-86 Budget has been greeted by many commentators as a sane and sensible economic document. When the Budget was delivered what criticism there was focused mainly on the Government's equivocal undertakings on wage discounting. The business community's fear that the Government would sell out on the wages front was fulfilled when the new accord was released last week. Through this extraordinarily generous new deal with the trade union movement, the Government has burdened the Australian economy with substantial additional wage costs and the business and wider community can now only nervously await the long overdue tax package which will almost certainly contain a capital gains tax. Yet, as I have recognised, the Budget was perceived to be sound and relatively conservative. I believe that this view will come to be regarded as superficial as the assumptions which underpin the Budget are exposed as being unrealistically optimistic. I join with you, Mr Deputy Speaker, in the remarks that you made when you spoke in this House less than half an hour ago. The present Federal Government is undoubtedly skilful. Its strengths, from the short term perspective of ensuring the Government's own survival, are its capacity for deal making and its propensity for the design and use of very effective marketing ploys. On the economic front the Government makes the very most of what it has got. It wrings every last drop of apparent credibility from what, on closer examination, is not particularly confidence inspiring at all. I recognise this talent displayed by the Government and evidenced in the general perception of its economic bona fides. That is no small achievement either. Many past governments have been their own worst enemies when it has come to the packaging and communication of the so-called good news with which they could claim at least some tenuous association. The Hawke Government has not undercut itself in this way. On the contrary, it has packaged and sold itself so well that there has been an excessively generous judgment of just how sound the Government's policies and economic management abilities are. Like you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I believe that the Government has overdrawn its credibility account. It has worn proudly the kudos associated with the rates of economic growth evident over the past two and a half years. Having tied itself so firmly to the good showings of many economic indicators during that period, it will be equally firmly associated with the economic downslide which is about to be revealed. I emphasise that my comments are not intended to be melodramatic or overwrought. Nevertheless, it must be said that the Government has squeezed out every last drop of positive public relations on the economic front since coming to office, but the free ride is about to run out of steam. Even the Treasurer (Mr Keating), supreme in his ability to beat up the economic pluses and play down the minuses, will be unable to escape the market realities which will make mincemeat out of the 1985-86 Budget projections in the coming months. Yesterday the Treasurer consistently evaded the Opposition's determined questioning of him on the matter of interest rates. He used the well worn tactic of diverting attention to the economic records of previous Governments-in this instance, that of the Fraser Government. I would like to give the Treasurer a bit of straight advice. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) and the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) might like to pass it on to him. That ploy might have worked yesterday. The Treasurer might be able to string it out for another week and still get away with it. But if it is used for any longer than that it will begin to wear thin-so thin in fact that the electorate will start demanding in a very vocal manner answers to the questions the Opposition has been asking and will continue to ask at Question Time after Question Time until we and the Australian public get the answers we deserve. If the Treasurer believes that he can continue to fudge the interest rates issue, he is in for a rude awakening. Contrary to the election time hype of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), interest rates have not fallen. They have soared. In August last year the going rate on 90-day bank bills was 10 1/2 per cent to 11 per cent; in August this year the rate was 17 per cent plus. The rate on 180-day bank bills shows a commensurate leap. In August last year the rate was 10 1/2 per cent to 10 3/4 per cent; in August this year the rate was hovering around 17 per cent. References to the previous Government's economic record will not help this Government explain away the soaring interest rates that are evident right now-not last year or a few years ago, but right now in today's capital markets. The Australian community does not want to know about what was-it wants to know why interest rates are so high and what the Government intends to do about it now. Australian home owners do not want to listen to the Treasurer fudging questions from the Opposition about the issue; they want to know why they are getting pinched by higher mortgage repayments as interest rates continue to spiral. The Government cannot afford to take this matter lightly, as it has tried to do this week. Many commentators expected the present high rates to be a temporary phenomenon, but that has not proved to be the case. Small and medium-sized businesses are most vulnerable to the rising interest rate cost component of production and are being squeezed hard. The negative employment consequences of this in the smaller business units in small business around Australia, which provide the bulk of jobs in the Australian labour market, have yet to flow through into retrenchments; but it will happen. The indication that high interest rates are here to stay in the short to medium term has undoubtedly engendered a pessimism amongst employers which has reduced employment growth from the rate which it otherwise might have reached and, if the present trend continues, a rising unemployment rate is not difficult to imagine. The prevailing level of interest rates obviously will have a negative impact on the general level of business investment in physical as well as human capital. The prospect of interest rates remaining at their present record levels for the rest of the financial year must inevitably cause a rethinking of proposed capital investment in the business sector. This will further inhibit employment growth as demand for plant and equipment fails to reach the levels predicted by the Government in its Budget. This is all of enormous and direct relevance to each and every budgetary calculation. The entire document, the entire Budget, is based on an assumption concerning consumption: That private consumer spending will remain strong and that business investment will be even stronger than it has been over the last few years. It is the Treasurer who continues to talk about growth, growth, growth, based on that assumption. But how fragile that assumption is. How wrongly based it could well be in the light of the interest rates being suffered by each and every Australian-if not directly through the cost of borrowed money, then through higher product prices as the ballooning interest bill is passed on to consumers. Will this not act to depress consumption considerably from the levels the Government predicted it would reach in the Budget? Of course it will. That brings me to the second fear surging through the Australian community-the fear of inflation. Expectations of significantly rising prices are intensifying. Interest rates have already burst on to the scene as a major economic concern for the coming financial year, and I predict that inflation is about to complete the duo, the double-interest rates and inflation. The Government has both built the inflationary fire and lit it with the accords, mark 1 and now we have mark 2. The Government's original commitment to full wage indexation established the structural preconditions for a renewed inflationary spiral. Now, the Government's cave-in on wage discounting in the light of the dollar's devaluation has breathed a potent force into the inflationary spark which is already evident in rising consumer price index figures. It is clear that from the very start, from February, the Government underestimated the speed with which devaluation-based price rises would flow into the system. It is now incredible, in the light of this underestimation, that the Government has adopted a course of action which will result in full wage indexation in the September national wage case and only a partial wage discount in the April national wage case next year. The Government thus has constructed a solid springboard for another inflationary spiral as anyone could imagine. Inflation, exacerbated by devaluation-based wage rises, will have been allowed to run on by the Government for over a year before any wage discount at all is secured, and even then it will be only a partial discount. High interest rates and rising inflation-it sounds a bit like 1974-75 to me. On top of this, the Government has agreed to support a 3 per cent Australian Council of Trade Unions productivity claim without even bothering to determine whether there has been any productivity increase in industry. The Government, in its eagerness to close the deal, clearly neglected to check out the possibility that whatever productivity gains have occurred may have already been distributed through wages drift. When the Government and the ACTU get together, it is the continuance of their cosy relationship which is paramount-not the wellbeing of the Australian economy and not the wellbeing of the Australian nation. The Government-ACTU productivity deal demonstrates, if nothing else, the Treasurer's exceptional generosity with other people's money. I note, too, the Government's cavalier attitude to the opinion of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in the fixing of its latest deal with the ACTU. The Commission is clearly a relevant and valued institution only when it suits the Government's own purposes. The budgetary predictions which I have challenged are beginning to come under like-minded scrutiny. The Deputy Director of the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research, Barry Gray, was quoted in today's Press predicting that the Australian economy's growth rate in 1985-86 would be 2.3 per cent rather than the 4.5 per cent predicted by the Government. The respected stockbroker Potter Partners has predicted a slowing of economic growth in 1984-85 and has commented that the Budget's economic growth forecast is due to a `statistical illusion' based on a strong June quarter 1985 result. Such analyses hardly lend an aura of respectability to the Treasurer's own Budget predictions. The keynote theme of this Budget was the welfare of young Australians. It was, indeed, the focus of the speech of the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand). The Budget was, in fact, dubbed the `Youth Budget' by the Government's image-makers-in line with its strengths of image-making that I spelt out before. The Government has announced funding for two youth policy initiatives in the Budget-first, the wage subsidy based youth traineeship scheme; and, secondly, a revision of income support arrangements for young people. Neither initiative will adequately fulfil the task for which it was designed. I want to outline briefly some of their principal shortcomings. Through the youth traineeship scheme, under which employers will receive Commonwealth subsidies for every trainee employed, the Government has tacitly admitted the disincentive created by high youth wages for the employment of young people. Why does the Government not wake up to and acknowledge this fact and take action accordingly to free up youth wages? Let me say to honourable members opposite: We are not talking about exploitation; we are talking about opportunity, and opportunity for far more young people than presently is the case where we can offer them only a continuation of unemployment benefits, but with a freed up wage system we can offer them the prospect of jobs, skill acquisition and training. Secondly, the youth traineeship scheme has been announced without a single agreement having been signed with any sector of industry regarding its implementation-the public relations stakes running wild again. Not even the details of its implementation in the Commonwealth Public Service were released in the Budget, and I strongly suspect that this was because the Government has no idea what to do with its own trainees, let alone trainees in the industry sector. Thirdly, there appears to be substantial union resistance to the traineeship scheme's implementation. Some key unions are insisting on compulsory union membership and the payment of full award wages and conditions for acceptance of the scheme. Fourthly, the net effect of the scheme has not been estimated. The Government has been totally silent on the likely displacement effect of the scheme, and we have heard no estimate from it of how many traineeships will represent new jobs rather than replacements of existing jobs filled by other young people. The revised income support arrangements go part of the way towards resolving the perverse incentives created by Commonwealth cash benefits to young people but a crucial anomaly remains. If a young person living with his family is studying full time his benefits are means tested against family income. If he is unemployed his benefits are still not means tested other than against personal earnings. This anomaly needs to be addressed and the Government has failed to do so. Little thought seems to have been given to the expenditure consequences of all this down the track. The extra cost of these two initiatives in 1985-86 will be approximately $51m, but by 1988-89 this will have ballooned to over a third of a billion dollars in extra expenditure. That is a huge commitment for a package which has clearly been cobbled together, for political reasons, oh so hastily. It is my responsibility to champion the cause of youth in this House and I hope to get many opportunities to do so. The coalition will shortly be outlining its vision for young people. In my new capacity as Opposition spokesman on education and youth affairs I intend to press for positive and far reaching changes to the Government's education policy, which is bereft of imagination and riddled with the evidence of interest group domination. The coalition will bring a new spirit to the education portfolio and a renewed determination to get things right. Australia's education system is amongst the most monopoly ridden industries in Australia. As is consistent with all of our policies, our intention is to break down monopoly control and, in doing so, to maximise consumer choice and benefits in the education system. We will be offering a fresh and vital alternative to Labor's policies in the education sphere. I look forward, in the next two years, to spelling out these policies in this House and in the wider community. Finally, I return to my opening remarks. We all admire the Treasurer's skill and marketing flair but I urge him to tone down the theatrics and to level with the Australian people about Australia's true economic situation. It would be better for the Treasurer to do this now, from a position of relative authority, rather than after being sucked down into the vortex of an interest rate and inflation based recession. If the Government is willing to be serious about finding some genuine solutions to the structural problems Australia faces, the coalition is ready to support it in that endeavour. We need to rebuild our national prosperity on a firm foundation, not on the sands of dealism and well-packaged and well-marketed expedience. I, for one, look forward to the Treasurer's response. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(12.24) —It is a pleasure to follow the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) in his new role as Opposition spokesperson on education and youth affairs. He said that he will bring a new spirit to the education debate. The Opposition has certainly never brought a new spirit to education. I bet all those in the schools throughout Australia are trembling as they hear about the new spirit from the honourable member for Tangney. The only new spirit the Opposition is likely to bring in is to flog off what schools we have left to private enterprise and pour more millions, as it did in the past, into the private education system and let the state education system run down. I have no doubt that is the new spirit that the Opposition spokesman is talking about. A government, in introducing its Budget, outlines its plans and strategy for the coming year. Behind any Budget will be the political philosophy of those who occupy the treasury bench. Political philosophy is not always very popular in Australia. Many people look at a Budget to see what is in it for them. We know the political philosophy of those opposite. We have seen their Budgets, and unfortunately we have seen too many. Their new philosophy is one of privatisation-to sell off to their mates the great public enterprises paid for and owned by all Australians, a philosophy of Thatcherism that would make that good lady appear to be standing still. This Budget puts the philosophy of the Australian Labor Party squarely before the people of Australia. It is a philosophy that is and always has been one of concern for every Australian. What distinguishes us from those who sit opposite is our concern for all Australians; the workers, the business community and the youth, but most of all, the disadvantaged in the community. We are different from those who sit opposite in that we are not a sectional party. Our concern is not with the wealthy and privileged, with one small section, but with all Australians. This concern is shown in our policy on youth-those young people who were thrown on the scrap heap by seven disastrous years of government by those who now sit opposite and who claim to be an alternative government. Go and tell that to the young of Australia! Go and tell that to the young people of the Illawarra! The honourable member for Tangney had the audacity to criticise our youth policy. I ask: What did his Party do for the young of Australia in those seven disastrous years? It threw them on the scrap heap, that is what it did, and that is what it would do in the unlikely event that it ever regained office. When this Hawke Government came to office it was confronted with an appallingly high level of youth unemployment, a legacy from those seven disastrous years, with no established means of meeting the problem. Through a number of initiatives our Government has been able to create some 76,000 jobs for young people. Meanwhile, it sought the advice of a wide range of individuals and organisations skilled in the needs of young people. It has now developed a carefully constructed and clearly defined youth policy. This youth policy will provide valuable training and improved job prospects for many thousands of young Australians. The Government, in its Budget, has quite rightly singled out youth and their needs as priority one. In doing so it has directed its attention, and the attention of our society, to building up and consolidating the future of our nation. Our young people are our most valuable resource. They are our hope for the future. We owe it to them and to our nation to make them priority one. One does not have to take my word about the benefits in the Budget for all Australians. One has only to turn to the commentators, the academics and the newspaper editorials. They have all welcomed the Budget for its responsible approach to fiscal management. Contrast this with those who sit opposite and their policy of fiscal irresponsibility, a policy that would see them selling off Telecom Australia, Trans Australia Airlines, the Commonwealth Banking Corporation and indeed, according to the new and temporary Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, the Australian National Line and Qantas Airways Ltd, and he has even suggested government welfare agencies. Theirs is a policy that would see massive cuts in government spending. Those who talk about cuts in government expenditure must be sure that they know what they are talking about. I would like to know what the Opposition would cut. Would it cut pensions, which this Government has increased? Perhaps it would like to cut expenditure on child care, which has been increased by 60 per cent over the two and a half years since this Government came to office. Let us look at the figures in regard to child care. In June 1982, when you know who was in government, there were 37,850 full day care places provided. Now there are 59,480, an increase of 21,900 places; or 58 per cent in just two and a half years. In 1982-83 the coalition, when in government, allocated $98m for children's services. Expenditure in 1984-85 under this Government is estimated to be $157m, a 60 per cent increase in two and a half years. Moreover, it is the Government's intention, by the end of its current three-year term of office, to double the present level of child care. It is estimated that by then over 9 per cent of all Australian children under the age of five years will have access to government funded child care facilities. We accept that that is only a small number, but considering the position when we commenced, I believe that it is a magnificent effort on behalf of this Government. The overall effect of our Government's commitment to child care and to equal opportunity for women in the work force will thus benefit an estimated 50,000 children. National Party member after National Party member in this House calls for a cut in government expenditure and then calls for more assistance to the rural industry. I do not disagree with their call for more assistance to the rural industry, especially for the dairy sector of that industry, but the National Party cannot have it both ways. On Tuesday, the honourable member for Henty (Mrs Child) showed that Party's hypocrisy in her excellent contribution to this debate. Those honourable members opposite who bleat loudest for cuts in government expenditure bleat equally loudly when expenditure is cut on their personal hobby horses. The National Party members who, with one voice, call for more government expenditure on roads, child care, nursing homes and a whole range of issues, call equally loudly for cuts in government expenditure. As I said, they cannot have it both ways. They have to make up their minds whether they want cuts or increases in government expenditure. The movement to privatisation that the Opposition is pushing should be seen for what it is-an attempt to sell off the more profitable government enterprises. We heard the best attempts of the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) to justify his Party's disgraceful proposal to sell up Telecom. He spoke from the back benches and said that Government members were running aroung the country frightening people with stories about privatisation. This statement came from a member of the Opposition, members of which ran around Australia for 12 months scaring the living daylights out of every pensioner. Upset pensioners used to ring me. They could not sleep because of the disgraceful lies that the Opposition was telling about the assets test. Yet honourable members opposite have the audacity to talk about us scaring pensioners. Let us look at the extra cost of privatisation for Telecom subscribers. In Wollongong-I see that, as usual, the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) is in the House and he will be very interested in this-it would cost the people an extra $32 just for their subscriptions and every telephone call would cost them an extra 6c. In a town such as Bowral, a town in my electorate, the people would have to find an extra $200 and pay the extra 6c on each call. It would cost my pensioner parents in Kempsey in the electorate of the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl)-I notice that he is not here, as is usual-an extra $274, plus the extra 6c for every telephone call. The honourable member for Cowper most certainly would not get my parents' vote or that of any of the pensioners in the electorate of Cowper with the proposed extra Telecom charges. If this policy were implemented my poor old pensioner parents would not even be able to ring me up to congratulate me on being re-elected as the honourable member for Throsby, because under the Opposition policy of privatisation, they could not even afford to have a telephone put on, let alone pay the bill. So much for the Nationals' policy on privatisation. I listened with amazement on Tuesday night to the speech by the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp). The National Party members are unbelievable. If they really believe what they are saying in this House, they are too stupid to be members of this House. If they do not believe what they are saying, they are just cynical hypocrites. The honourable member for Gilmore told us that he wanted a 44-hour or 46-hour week. He wanted to return us to the good old days of the poor house and sweated labour. The only proposal missing from his speech was the reintroduction of child labour. I suspect that some National Party members would secretly support this proposal. The honourable member for Gilmore gave us his flat tax policy-the flat tax policy from the Flat Earth Party. Most of the young National Party members in this House, such as the millionaire member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), who shouts about work but has never done a day's work in his life, are the products of an expensive private education system. Listening to them makes me thankful that I did not have the benefit of a private education and reinforces my suspicions about that kind of education. I turn now to a more international issue. One aspect in the Budget Papers that I particularly welcome is the altered payment system to the United Nations Organisation. I believe that a suggestion was put to the Secretary to the Department of Finance by our Ambassador to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, the Hon. Gough Whitlam. His Excellency impressed upon the Department that it was desirable that Australia follow the honourable course and pay all its contributions to international bodies in full and on time. Accordingly, a catch-up payment was made last June, just before the commencement of our financial year, to pay the full subscriptions due for the UN financial year, which coincides with the calender year. This move gives Australia greater standing within the UN. The prompt payment in full not only shows our commitment to the United Nations but also helps it to regularise its money flow. This is most important, given the tight budget on which the UN is compelled to operate. Of course, this would not worry the National Party. I suppose it would have us leave the UN and would have us follow an isolationist policy. In February 1986, Australia will pay its full 12 months subscription in line with the UN budgetary year. This procedure will be in marked contrast of that of many other countries. Some countries are notorious for paying their contributions after the expiry of the financial year for which they were due and, as is especially the case with the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, some do not pay in full. Many Western countries are prone to criticise specialised agencies of the UN and other international organisations for their inefficiency which these countries promote by tardiness in answering questionnaires, submitting applications and paying contributions. I welcome the move proposed by the Hawke Government. I am pleased to note that the honourable member for Lindsay (Mr Free) is present in the chamber, because I will mention something about his electorate in a moment. Turning from international matters, I will briefly mention a Budget initiative which I know my colleague is very interested in. We have heard about the relief to the Australian thoroughbred horse breeding industry. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, (Mr John Brown) gave figures in this House to show the benefits of this industry to Australia. There can now be no excuse for Australian breeders, who have long complained that they could hold New Zealand competition for the horse dollar only if they did not have to pay certain taxes. They argued that New Zealand breeders were able to import better horses because they paid no sales tax on importations. Additionally, the New Zealand tax department allowed breeders to write off age deterioration in mares and stallions as a tax deduction. These vital concessions allowed New Zealand breeders to buy some of Australia's finest fillies and brood mares for their paddocks at the expense of local standards. The tax handicaps were reflected at the winning post. It is not only the Australian thoroughbred horse breeding industry that will benefit. The Minister who has rebuilt our tourist industry has also secured the future of our racing industry. As he said recently in this House, this industry employs over 250,000 people. Many of those people are in the electorate of my colleague the honourable member for Lindsay. Many sectors of the racing industry stand to gain from this Budget. I refer to racing clubs, trotting clubs and, a sector that is very important to the honourable member for Macarthur and to me, greyhound racing. Greyhound racing is a basic working class sport and it is very popular in the Throsby electorate. Many patrons of the Dapto dogs, the Nowra dogs and the Moss Vale dogs in my electorate, and the Bulli dogs in the electorate of my friend the honourable member for Macarthur, are grateful to this Government for its assistance to the greyhound racing industry. This deeply divided Opposition, in its response to the Budget, keeps talking about unions and union power. This Government has no apology to make for a close working relationship with the trade union movement-a relationship that has given this country the lowest number of days lost through industrial disputation for 30 years. It has also given record business confidence and, I might add, record profits. Long may this close working relationship continue. Do we hear members of the Opposition talk about their relationship with the multinationals and big business? They remain very silent. Occasionally, we hear the tinkle of the money from big business going into the Opposition coffers, but nothing else. What would their approach to trade unions be? We have seen little of this approach in Queensland with the South East Queensland Electricity Board dispute. The Opposition's policies and its anti-union rhetoric and activities would lead to disputation and confrontation. The workers from my area, when the opposition was in power, marched on this building and in justifiable anger forced open the front door. In the unlikely event that those opposite regain the treasury benches the workers of the Illawarra would tear this place apart brick by brick. But indeed we can rest very easy. Australia will become more and more aware of the confrontationsist, divisive policies of members of the Opposition and the Australian people will not put them on the treasury bench. Naturally, I support the Budget. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(12.41) —The contribution made by the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) is, if anything, simply a sad reflection on the ability of some of the members on the Government side. The views which the honourable member espoused towards the end of this speech are views of the latter part of last century, not the latter part of this century. I refer to his comment about the assests test and how members of the Opposition allegedly frightened the daylights out of pensioners. I suggest that it was the Government which frightened the daylights out of pensioners. I can clearly recall the little meetings of all those members, particularly the rural sector Australian Labor Party members, who huddled together saying that the assets test must be changed whilst the metropolitan Labor members said: `To hell with the people out there; they can sell their properties'. The Government had as much compassion for those people as the average citizen has for those who benefited from the recent Budget. I refer specifically to the measures concerning greyhounds and horses which, in the mind of the honourable member for Throsby, are the headlight of the 1985 Budget. The point I wish to dwell upon is the way in which the current Government has continued to move into the pockets of the average working man and woman in this country. Unfortunately my speech will be curtailed in about three or four minutes and I will have to continue later in the afternoon. I want to spend the couple of minutes available to me highlighting the lack of generosity that really exists on the other side of the chamber. We have seen headlines today suggesting that the upper limits of the tax levels will be reduced. But a few weeks ago when this Parliament was not sitting the sleazy Treasurer (Mr Keating), with the backing of his Government, announced that concessional expenditure was going to be withdrawn. It may well be said by the honourable member for Throsby that not everybody benefited from concessional expenditure. Mr Deputy Speaker, I suggest to you that 360,000 Australian families have to pay another $222 per year in tax as a result of that sleight of hand. The Government has removed from concessional expenditure funeral, burial and cremation expenses and the legal costs involved in adopting a child. Education expenses have been excluded as have self-education expenses. A deduction for rates and land taxes was introduced in this country in 1915, 70 years ago. The seventieth anniversay of this is marked by its abolition. The Government no longer allows children's education expenses, which first became deductible in 1952; self-education expenses, which became deductible in 1972; and medical expenses, which first became deductible in 1924. Instead, it has introduced a system whereby if a person spends beyond $1,000 on medical expenses he is entitled to a rebate. The reality is that with Medicare one has to be incredibly ill to get anywhere near that figure. We all kinow that the Medicare system even guarantees that Medicare will pay the full amount beyond personal expenditure of $150. Yet the Government says it is replacing the previous concessional expenditure arrangements with a new rule whereby if one's medical expenses exceed $1,000 one is entitled to a deduction. A person would have to spend a lot of money on chemist and medical bills to get anywhere near that figure. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 106A. The debate will be resumed at a later hour. The honourable member will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Mr FREE(Lindsay)(12.46) —I move: That this House congratulates the Government on its major achievements in the field of sport, in particular- (1) the generous financial support for Australia's world class athletes provided by the recently announced National Athlete Award Scheme grants; (2) the great success of the recent Australia Games in which the Government was the major financial sponsor, and (3) the announcement of Government support for the Brisbane City Council's bid to stage the 1992 Olympic Games. This motion seeks to congratulate the Government on its magnificent record in sport, on its broad achievements within that portfolio, and on the philosophy which was developed by Labor in opposition and which is being implemented by Labor in government by the programs funded through the Budget, and particularly to commend the enthusiasm with which the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) has approached the many tasks before him. The motion also seeks to commend the Government for three specific areas of activity: The support it has provided for our world class athletes; the success of this year's Australia Games; and its support for Brisbane's bid for the 1992 summer Olympics. Every decision taken in this area should be understood in the context of the Government's basic objectives in sport. These are two: First, to foster elite sport; secondly, to encourage the widest participation in sport throughout the community. The Government's dedication to these twin objectives-on the one hand, to elite sport to encourage our best, to encourage international competition, and to upgrade facilities to international standards, and, on the other, to grass roots participation to eliminate disadvantage, whether it be geographical or physical-is reflected in its decisions. For example, the first of these priorities was met in this year's Budget, which sets in place programs which will enable our athletes to continue at the forefront of world sports achievements through the allocation of $13.2m to the world's most modern and greatest sports institute, the Australian Institute of Sport. Through the establishment of the Australian Sports Commission and the provision of $8.7m for operational and program expenses, we have created the environment to allow the Commission to play a vital linking role between the sporting community and the Government. The Commission through its children in sport program will assist sporting clubs and coaches in the development of our youngsters. This will lead to greater enjoyment and participation in sports of Australia's most precious resource, its young people-another step towards the achievement of that second goal. The Commission will further reinforce the Government's policy to seek wherever possible the provision of private funds for sports programs through the establishment of a sports aid foundation which will offer tax deductibility to those companies seeking to donate money to sporting groups. This is not a big spending government in relation to sport. The fact that we have increased spending on sport by around 400 per cent since the last Howard Budget might suggest otherwise, but this is really a product of the minimal interest in and minimal support of sport under the Liberals. This is a government which recognises the important role that can be and will be played by the private sector. Consistent with our policy of continuing support for disabled groups in the community, we have provided $700,000 for specific purpose programs for the disabled. With the provision of $150,000, we are co-sponsoring with the Westfield Corporation and the New South Wales Government the Westfield Special Olympics. This is an exciting step towards the integration of able-bodied and disabled youth in a common sporting endeavour. We will provide a total of $1.2m to the surf lifesaving groups to assist them with their magnificent work. All Australians should be proud of the work done by these magnificent men and women, and it is beholden on all governments, irrespective of their political colour, to support a group whose members are prepared to give of their time freely and to place their own safety in jeopardy to ensure the safety of their fellow Australians. We recognise the significance of once again staging an Olympic Games in Australia. To this end we have provided $300,000 to the Brisbane City Council to assist it with its bid to host the 1992 Olympic Games. Consistent with our philosophy of leading Australia from the dark ages of the Fraser Government's sport and recreation policy to the enlightened Hawke years, we have made all facilities at the Australian Institute of Sport available to stage the World Cup next month. This event ranks second only to the Olympic Games in its significance as a major athletic event. With this Budget, as my friend the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) mentioned recently, we have continued to support the horse racing industry through the provision of tax relief to racing clubs and horse breeders. This is yet another example of our commitment to a private sector-led recovery. This industry employs up to a quarter of a million people and has an annual turnover of an estimated $15 billion. This is not, as the Opposition has described it, an attempt to prop up the sport of kings. This is a genuine initiative aimed at generating further employment and allowing clubs to upgrade the standard of facilities offered to racing followers. It is not aimed at lining the pockets of millionaires. It is aimed at ensuring that the battling trainer is given an opportunity to participate on an equal footing with others in the industry, in particular those from New Zealand, thus, as the honourable member for Throsby said, removing that handicap which appears so often at the winning post. I turn now to the great and outstanding success of the inaugural Australia Games which were conducted in Melbourne in late January and early February to coincide with Victoria's sesquicentenary. The games were organised jointly by the Commonwealth and Victorian governments and the Australia Games Foundation in an endeavour to provide a national focus for sport, to facilitate regular higher level competition for Australia's top athletes in their own country, to act as a major catalyst in promoting the benefits of increases participation and involvement in sport, to encourage the States and the Territories to upgrade on a co-ordinated basis sports facilities of an international standard and to facilitate an environment where Australian sporting officials can gain valuable planning and organisational experience which will enhance Australia's chances of hosting major international events in future years. Those objectives were achieved. There were 13 major sporting competitions included on the program. They included basketball, boxing, cycling, gymnastics, hockey, lawn bowls, netball, surf lifesaving, swimming, synchronised swimming, track and field, water polo and weightlifting. There were eight sporting events conducted at a lower level of competition: Badminaton, judo, shooting, softball, squash, trampolining, volleyball and wrestling. The many highlights of the games included the attendance of 1,600 participants, including 804 from 31 other countries. There were capacity crowds at the opening ceremony and at the basketball, the netball, the gymnastics, the aquatics and the surf lifesaving. Another highlight of the games was the integration of disabled competition into the track and field, swimming, basketball, netball, lawn bowls and weightlifting programs. Most of all, the greatest highlight of the games was the provision of international competition for Australia's developing athletes and elite athletes in their own Australian environment. That the Australia Games were an outstanding success is clear to us all, but it was brought home by a post-event awareness survey which was commissioned by the Commonwealth and which showed an amazing public interest in the games. The survey showed that over 94 per cent of Australians were aware of the games, that 77 per cent of the population watched the games live on television and, most importantly-I know the Minister is playing close attention-that 84 per cent of all Australians said they would like to see Australia Games again. The Government is proud of its contribution to the games. It contributed $800,000 to an operational budget of some $3m. It also contrubuted half a million dollars on a dollar for dollar basis with the Victorian Government for resurfacing the athletics track at Olympic Park under the international standard sports facilities program. Australia certainly got excellent value for money from the Australia Games and, following the success of those games and following events in North Queensland, I look forward to the continuing development of the concept of regional competition. I turn to the Government's support of Brisbane City Council's bid for the 1992 Olympics. The Commonwealth has agreed to support the Council's bid for the 1992 Summer Olympics and will be providing some $600,000 for the preparation, presentation and promotion of that bid leading up to the decision of the International Olympic Committee in October 1986. Should this bid be successful, the Commonwealth has also agreed to the provision of assistance and services of the type not readily available from other sources, particularly communication, security and protocol, which are normally Commonwealth Government functions, in addition to those provided under normal programs and arrangements. The value of this support is estimated to be $63.5m which is expected to be recovered in full from the games revenue. The Government's firm support for Brisbane City Council in its bid for the games was evident in the presentation of the Council's bid in June in the German Democratic Republic. A Press report of the event says: Australia played host to the world in the lush setting of the Australian Embassy residence in East Germany yesterday. This was dated 2 June. To continue: Though Prime Minister Bob Hawke was not present, he delivered his support for Brisbane's bid by satellite. There was more important business in the country at that stage. To continue: `We are a nation of sports lovers with a solid sporting tradition and a proven record of achievement', said Mr Hawke. He spoke of Australia's success in staging and participating in major events, referring to the great success of the Brisbane Commonwealth Games in 1982. `They won world acclaim for the effectiveness and standards of their organisational facilities, hospitality and overall presentation', he said. Mr Hawke repeated the Federal Government's commitment to funding the bid and providing assistance. I am sure all members of the House join with me in expressing the hope that this bid will be successful. This is one of many major international sporting events that the Commonwealth is supporting. Others include the impending World Cup next month; the World Drivers' Championship in Adelaide, our contribution being $5m towards the capital costs of staging the inaugural Grand Prix which will take place on 3 November; and, of course, the 1987 America's Cup defence, of which I am sure we will hear more later. That is not all of the Government's achievements in the field of sport. My colleagues the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth) and the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin), fine sportsmen both, will deal in detail with the Government's outstanding record in a number of aspects of sport, including the National Athletes Award Scheme, the Sports Commission, the America's Cup Defence, which I know is dear to the heart of my friend from Perth, the Australian Institute of Sport, the programs which the Government has set in place for disabled sportspersons and the programs for children. Throughout, the Government's efforts have been directed to the achievement of those twin goals that I mentioned at the commencement of my remarks-to foster our best while at the same time encouraging the widest possible grass roots community participation in sport. I should cut my time a little short to allow my colleagues to participate fully in this debate, but before I resume my seat I note that the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) is to speak later in the debate. Of course, until events last week which shook the Opposition, he was the shadow Minister for Sport. I wish the honourable member for Richmond well in his new role as shadow Minister for Social Security and I express the hope that he enjoys a long career-a very long career-as an Opposition shadow Minister. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Is the motion seconded? Dr Charlesworth —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak later in the debate. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(1.00) —It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. It has been on and off again several times and for a while I thought I was going to be robbed of the opportunity to speak for one last time on sport. I thank the honourable member for Lindsay (Mr Free) for his kind remarks; they are appreciated. Mr John Brown —You didn't ask a question while you were shadow Minister! Mr BLUNT —The Minister ought to be grateful that I did not ask a question while I was shadow Minister. I will ask him one on cops! Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! I ask the honourable member for Richmond to ignore the interjections from the Minister. Mr BLUNT —I wish to state at the beginning that everybody agrees that sport is important. The difference that we on this side of the House have with the Government is that we believe that the Government has got the recipe wrong for how it is supporting sport. I draw the House's attention to the fact that this general business motion we are debating here today was actually composed and lodged before this year's Budget. I guess that, to some extent, honourable members on that side of the House would perhaps hope that it was of a different nature, given the impact of the Budget on sport in Australia today. It is my intention to examine in detail this Government's approach to sport and to prove to members of this House that the Government is going down the wrong track. Its objectives of fostering elite sport are laudable; its objective of encouraging participation in sport is laudable. Unfortunately it is being frustated because the money is being spent in other directions. I think an examination of the Budget Papers for this year proves conclusively that that is an essential failure. It arises because this Government believes that things are best done by bureaucracies rather than by allowing individuals, in particular those people concerned with sport in Australia, to develop their own programs, to spend their own money and to spend the money that govern- ment is prepared to put into sport to support it. Earlier this year this Parliament debated for the first time legislation establishing a statutory authority to control sport in Australia. It was known as the Australian Sports Commission. At that time we took exception to the methods which the Government had adopted to set up this sort of administrative apparatus. I believe with the benefit of hindsight, having seen what has happened since that debate and since this Budget, that our objections have been proven to be well-founded. The degree of political control that the legislation places into the hands of the responsible Minister, his discretion in this matter, makes the ASC and those honourable men and women who serve on it as commissioners almost superfluous. Having looked at Budget Paper No. 6, we are moved to asked why the Commission is given the responsibility for determining the spending of sport when the Budget Papers actually come up with preliminary estimates as to how money will be spent. Another problem we raised when we debated the Sports Commission legislation was the growth of bureaucracy-the cost of administering sport funding in Australia. Later in this debate I will examine in some detail what this Government is doing and how it is spending its money. Unfortunately I think the impact of bureaucracy on this Government's sports funding does it very little credit. It makes everybody think of that rather celebrated television program Yes, Minister. Quite frankly, I have a great deal of respect for the ability of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown). I cannot believe that he has knowingly allowed money to be spent in the way it is in this Budget. What we have seen-and I will examine it in more detail-is a massive growth in the cost of administration and of salaries and an actual decline in the percentage of money being spent on sport in Australia. The Minister also has difficulty convincing his colleagues on his side of the House of the need to continue funding sport programs. Several times the Minister has announced that the national athletics award scheme would be replaced or superseded by a sports talent plan and that the Government would actually provide some $3.5m for the sports talent plan. He promised that on 13 February. He promised it again on radio when he was interviewed on the Claire Martin show on 21 February. But when we examine the Budget this year we find that only $7m is available to the Australian Sports Commission for sports programs. If the commitment to the sports talent plan of some $3.5m is to be honoured there is just not enough money to go around to spend on other programs in sport. The other programs of course include the ambitious children in sport program, which is a very laudable program and which unfortunately I think has perhaps a political objective in that it comes to its fruition in 1988, the date of the projected next election. There are programs for sports science, et cetera, but quite frankly there just is not enough money to go around. As I said, this Government's Budget reduces expenditure on sport by some 15 per cent. Last year some $40.7m was spent on sport. This year some $34.5m is to be spent on sport, a reduction of 15 per cent. The Government has got its recipe wrong in the way it supports sport. In that Budget of some $34.5m the cost of administering the sports programs has gone up by 34 per cent, yet the amount of money that actually is spent on sports programs has gone down by 20.3 per cent. I think the priorities are wrong. I think that we should be spending money on sportsmen and women, on fostering sport and on encouraging participation, and not on funding bureaucrats. But obviously the Government thinks that there is another way to do it. If we look carefully at the structure that the Minister has established in relation to sport, that is, a Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism and an ASC, we will see that there is an essential conflict. I am told that there is some difficulty in the operations that exist between the ASC and the Department, but I am confident that the Minister will come to grips with that problem and resolve it in the near future to the benefit of sport. Maybe I could suggest that he eliminate one of them. The Budget Papers also contain estimates of staffing levels. The Minister, when he introduced the ASC Bill, said: It is necessary to ensure that taxpayers' money is used wisely to achieve the most effective outcomes for sport in the community. Then alluding to the Australian Sports Commission, he said: There must be a sound infrastructure of efficient and effective management to ensure that what we spend has the most beneficial impact on our community. I guess one safety valve is to have two infrastructures. What we have done is to set up the ASC which has an estimated staff level of some 20. It is worth going through what those 20 people do. Six will administer the assistance to the national sporting organisations, three will administer the sports talent plan, one will administer sports science, one will administer children in sport and, yes, there are nine who are simply general administrators. It is important to note that they are administering a budget of some $7m. It is also instructive then to look at what is happening in the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism where the estimated staff level, following the creation of the ASC, has declined by only one. It had an estimated staff level of 70 the previous year; it is now 69. We have also seen an increase of some 15 per cent in the cost of administering the Department. I quite frankly do not think that is the right way to go about spending the taxpayers' money on sport in Australia. We are not about featherbedding public servants. What we are about, as the honourable member for Lindsay said, is encouraging elite athletes and making sure that those people in Australia who have the genetic potential to represent this country internationally, to set records, to inspire the Australian people to get on with the job of creating some sort of unity, some sort of national pride in this country, get the most amount of support that is possibly available from this Government in a situation of expenditure restraint. Our other objective is to get kids out playing sport. That is what a government's objective should be, not to spend $30,000 setting up offices for an additional four members of staff in the ASC. Of course, it is necessary to move the ASC from the building in which the Department exists into another building. I do not know what the cost of moving the ASC is, but of course, because of those tensions I mentioned earlier that are becoming apparent throughout sport in Australia, we have to get the ASC out of the Department because, if we did not, we would probably have civil war. Perhaps some guerilla warfare is going on there already. The Minister, I believe, is competent. I am quite sure that he is not in the category of Jim Hacker and that there is no one in the Department who could be likened to Sir Humphrey in any way. I am sure he is going to address these very important problems and ensure that the people of Australia and sporting organisations in this country get value for their money. This motion that we are debating today refers to the Australia Games. The Australia Games are a great initiative which are supported, as the honourable member for Lindsay said, by 84 per cent of the Australian people; and they should be continued. They have an important place in Australia. There needs to be some fine tuning. Perhaps the timing of the holding of the games needs to be changed. But the Games will never be a major success until they get the genuine support of the Government. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) of this nation is the patron of the games. Did the Prime Minister go to the games? Did he participate in the opening ceremony? No. Why not? No one seems to know. There was some sort of an election campaign going on in Victoria at the time and perhaps he had to stand next to his colleague the Premier of Victoria. Perhaps he had heard that the games were not going to be quite as successful and there was not going to be quite as much media coverage as he had hoped, so he opted for the maximum media coverage. Of course, the Minister attended, and well he should, I hope that he enjoyed himself at the games just as much as I did. But unfortunately no other Minister of the Government went to the Australia Games. Not one other member of this Government, with its great commitment to sport in Australia, could find the time to attend one event. What hope has the Minister, when he goes to Cabinet asking for increased funding for sport, of winning when none of his colleagues will come to the Australia Games? Of course, that is the essential problem. As I said earlier, the Minister, on a number of occasions, has said: `After the August Budget we are going to have $3.5m for the sports talent plan'. Of course, we have not got it. Why have we not got it? He got rolled in Cabinet. My advice to the Minister is to make sure that more of his colleagues go to the next Australia Games. Then they will understand the importance of sport. I am sure that some of them do not even realise the electoral advantage of being seen at such events. Anyway, that is another matter. It concerns me that the Government adopts a very secret approach to sport in Australia. I believe that there is a report on the Australia Games-how they were run, what the consequences of them are and how they should be run in the future. Has it been tabled in the Parliament? No. Is it available? No. It is like the interim report of the Sports Commission. A freedom of information request does not even bring it. One has to threaten to go to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Then finally, because he does not want to argue the importance of secrecy in sport, it is released before he actually has to go public and expose the arguments against it. Mr John Brown —Have you read it yet? Mr BLUNT —I have read it and I have circulated it. I am getting some very interesting correspondence on it. I am sure the Minister is also. This motion is inadequate because it does not really allow a full debate on the matters relevant to sport in Australia. For that reason I seek to amend it. We have circulated to honourable members in the chamber an amendment in my name which will be seconded by the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan). It concerns me that we really do not have a genuine bi-partisan approach to sport in Australia. As I said, there is a report into the Australia Games. If this Government seeks to promote the Australia Games as a success and claims credit for them, I think it should genuinely be prepared to make that report into the Australia Games available for public discussion, for the information of the Parliament and for the information of people who will participate in future Australia Games. I am concerned that this Government seems to pre-empt decisions of the ASC. I have said that previously we took exception to the approach that was adopted to establishing the ASC in terms of administering sport and that we felt it did not provide enough input for sporting organisations throughout Australia. In my travels around Australia I am now made aware increasingly of the general concern of people involved in sport-that they do not have sufficient input. I wonder what the purpose of the ASC is when the preliminary estimates for its spending, for its Budget appropriations, are made and included in the Budget Papers prior to being considered by the members of the Sports Commission. I wonder what sort of autonomy the ASC really has when the Minister, in reference to the national athletic award scheme, can suggest that, if a particular athlete did not receive an award this year, he would receive it next year, Of course, those decisions, we were told in the Minister's second reading speech on the ASC, would be made by the ASC. Notwithstanding that, the Minister claims it has autonomy. In the time remaining to me, I would like to move the amendment. I move: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `this House expresses concern that the Government's policies on sport fail to preserve the independence of sport and prevent sporting bodies and organisations from controlling the pace and direction of future developments'. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Is the amendment seconded? Mrs Sullivan —Madam Deputy Speaker, I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Dr CHARLESWORTH(Perth)(1.15) —I must say it is a pleasure for me to be able to second the motion moved by the honourable member for Lindsay (Mr Free) today and, indeed, to express my rejection of the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt). Of course, a large number of major achievements in relation to sport can be attributed to the Hawke Government. Indeed, this motion focuses on some of those aspects in particular but leaves it open for us to discuss the other major achievements of this government in relation to sport. Since Federation, there have seldom been opportunities for members of this place to discuss sport. I suppose that one of the first opportunities since Federation, in fact, for that to take place was in May when the Australian Sports Commission legislation was debated. The honourable member for Lindsay, of course, outlined early in his speech this year's budgetary commitments of the Government. At last the sporting community in this country finds that it is being provided with reasonable amounts of funding wherby sport can participate and progress in this country. I endorse the honourable member's comments with regard to the Australia Games. As one of the 1,600 participants in those games, I can say only that it was a remarkable success and I look forward to the opportunity perhaps to compete again in the future. I believe that the comments of the honourable member for Richmond with regard to the timing of the games are very relevant but I have some difficulty, I must admit, with his comment regarding the non-attendance of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) at that function, considering that the opening occurred on the Australia Day weekend. I imagine that the Prime Minister had a large number of other commitments at the time. It seems that finally we have in this country a Prime Minister who has a genuine and sincere interest in sport. I might just quote, as I have done before in this place, from the Bulletin article of October 1982 by Mike Gibson when he commented on the previous Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, and his rather cynical approach to sport in this country, Mike Gibson said at that time: Another great performer was the Prime Minister. Representing a government that is internationally notorious for the miserly attitude it adopts towards towards its greatest advertisement-our sportsmen and women-Malcolm Fraser seemed to bob up at the Games whenever the television camera presented itself. He took the gold medal for cynicism. No wonder most competitors to whom I spoke merely grinned wryly and shook their heads at the mention of his name. The previous Government's attitude to sport is in stark contrast to that of the present Prime Minister who, as I said, has a genuine, sincere and long-standing interest and devotion to sport. The honourable member for Richmond, of course, started off by saying that money that is disbursed to sporting organisations should really be without any oversight and without any control and really it should be up to them to decide what they do with it. Later he started to suggest that money was shedded in this year's Budget. One does not have to be an intellectual genius to realise that many of the capital expenditure programs that were previously undertaken by the Government are now being completed and that this is the reason why there has been some change in the budgetary figures. At the same time, his colleague at the table was complaining that we are spending too much money. So one really has a great deal of difficulty understanding where the Opposition stands with regard to this. At the same time, he said that we should be getting kids involved in sport. But in government our opponents never did. At the same time, he said that there should be increased assistance, that the money available to elite athletes should be improved and that the direction in which it is spent should be improved. Yet when our opponents were in government that was not the case and it seems that there was never any commitment by them to that sort of approach. Of course, there have been a number of major achievements of the Hawke Government in relation to sport. Underpinning all of these things are the general objectives of this Government with regard to sport-the pursuit of excellence, making appropriate participation available to all Australians, and perhaps an acceptance and appreciation that a healthier lifestyle can benefit our country in a meaningful way. We have seen with this Government a substantial increase in funding to sport-a substantial increase over the Fraser years and the years before that. We have seen further growth, development, expansion and indeed decentralisation of the Australian Institute of Sport, which is considered by many international commentators to be the greatest institute of sport in the world today. I believe that much credit for the Australian Institute of Sport and its initiation goes to Bob Ellicott, a member of the previous Government, but I must say that the ethos and the seed or embryonic stages of this great institute were started with the Labor Government and Frank Stewart in the years 1972-75. We are now finding, of course, that many States are following the lead of the Federal Government, and State institutes of sport are being developed which will feed into this national or Australian Institute of Sport. I can see that only as a very positive benefit. Perhaps the most significant achievement of the Hawke Government has been the development of the Australian Sports Commission, the landmark legislation for which passed through this House in May of this year. We now have an advisory body which will take responsibility for defining and recommending priorities to the Government. This body will be responsible for recommending allocation and administration of money which is spent in the sports development area. It will be a consultative body with sport and with the community. The sporting community is a diverse and very substantial part of our society. There are elements at the Commonwealth, State and local levels. There are country and city elements. There are men and women. There are the disabled, the elderly and all sorts of groups which require consultation and with whom the Sports Commission has already set up the bridges by which this consultation can take place. Mr John Brown —The funny thing is that that is what the staff do. Dr CHARLESWORTH —That is what the staff of the Sports Commission are doing, and indeed this is one of the things to which we find objection from the Opposition. The Sports Commission and the sports commissioners are people of great notoriety in sport who have a sincere and deep interest in sport. It is a pity that our opponents cannot appreciate that. Part of the Sports Commission's job will be to generate new sources of revenue. The Sports Aid Foundation, which is in its embryonic stages, is looking to do that. It will be playing a part in evaluating programs. There will be significant other areas in which the Sports Commission will be looking at improving the communication with government, at the way in which government money is spent and at the way in which further money can be raised from the private sector. The Opposition, of course, typical of its approach to sport, I suppose, has been attacking the members of the Sports Commission. I well remember the debate here in May when members of the Sports Commission, such as outstanding Australians as Herb Elliott, were described as mere puppets of the Government. That was an insult to an admirable group of sporting personalities-people who have interest in and knowledge of all facets and levels of sport in this country. The representation on the Sports Commission, of course, was criticised. Perhaps there was an understanding by the Opposition that each sport should have a particular representative. That, of course, would have made it a most unwieldly and impossible situation. There was criticism of the Sports Aid Foundation and of the provision of tax deductibility within that Foundation. Yet for 30 years in this country our opponents were in a position to have perhaps assisted sport in this way but chose not to do so. Other achievements, of course, of the Sports Commission and of this Government are initiatives with regard to the disabled, lifesaving, women in sport, the elderly and many other areas. It is salutory for us to look at this time at the performance of our opponents-the people who are being so critical. I have already mentioned the cynicism of Malcolm Fraser but one has to look only at what happened in sport in the 1950s and 1960s when our opponents were in government in this country to see the contribution that they made. In 1972 for the first time we had a Minister for Sport in the Federal Parliament. Yet in 1975, when the Whitlam Government was defeated, we no longer found a ministry for sport. In 1976 money was taken away from the 1976 Montreal Olympics team by that Government and in those dark years following 1976 there was no increase in the funding for sport. Then came 1980 when the Prime Minister of the country bullied, bribed and coerced all sporting organisations within this country to stay away from the Moscow Olympic Games. As one affected by the activities of the Prime Minister at the time, I must say I could have only contempt for the way in which that was done. Of course, the latest chapter in the record of our opponents with regard to sport is their opposition to the Sports Commission and its establishment. One of the major aspects of this motion which I would like to deal with very briefly is the national athlete awards scheme. For many years competing athletes in this country have been disadvantaged not only in comparison with athletes from Eastern bloc countries or from North America and European countries but even in comparison with Asian countries, who we would consider to have a much lower standard of living than our own. The pursuit of excellence in sport in this country was very often not encouraged and indeed was positively discouraged by governments. In Canada there is a card system available for elite sportsmen. In the United States of America there is a celebrated college scholarships scheme, and in countries such as West Germany there are national sports funds largely contributed to by the private sector. But in Australia for a long long time no assistance was available to elite sportsmen. It was not until the early 1980s that the national athlete award scheme found its beginnings, and it was not really until 1984-85 that the Hawke Government was able to provide realistic levels of monetary assistance to our outstanding athletes. In 1985, $768,000, a 50 per cent increase, was available under the national athlete award scheme to 170 individuals and 18 teams. On top of assistance available to scholarship holders at the Australian Institute of Sport, this represents a significant difference in the contribution of this Government compared with those of previous governments. The Sports Commission has now taken over the role of looking into the disbursement of funds through the national athlete award scheme and the sports talent encouragement program is being implemented at this stage. The emphasis, of course, will be not rewarding past performance but on encouraging future performances. This more flexible approach and the criteria which have been laid down by STEP will provide a much more forward-looking attitude to how our elite sportsmen are funded. I want to make one or two more comments with regard to some criticism which has been directed towards the Government's assistance for the America's Cup defence. The money that is being made available for the defence of the America's Cup is not being made available to defence syndicates; it is not being made available to millionaire yachtsmen; it is the people of Perth and the communities of Perth and Fremantle who will benefit in an ongoing way from money which is being spent in that area. One only has to be overseas to realise this. Last year I remember in the United States opening a major newspaper and finding a full colour supplement on Perth and Western Australia within that newspaper. The sort of publicity and the sort of attention that Perth has had in that country as a result of the America's Cup defence will have a very significant effect on the infrastructure, the tourist industry and many of the other elements which make up the life of people in Perth. The money that is being spent by the Government there is being spent in a way which will provide long-standing benefits for the people in Western Australia. I would like to close by saying that throughout our time in opposition and now in government our commitment has been to the objectives of providing for excellence in sport, for increasing participation and for an understanding and appreciation that a healthy lifestyle can be of benefit to our community. Sport has an impact on the leisure industry; it has an impact on infrastructure; it has an impact on tourism, entertainment, jobs and, indeed, all of those intangible benefits about which the honourable member for Richmond spoke. The major achievements of this Government in sport have been substantial. I am happy to second the motion and look forward to the accolades of the House with regard to it. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(1.30) —I was mildly entertained to hear some of the sentiments contained in the closing words of the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth) in relation to the Hawke's Government achievement in sport. He talked about the Government's commitment to excellence, participation and an appreciation of the value of a healthy lifestyle. I am pleased the Government is committed to that. On previous occasions and in previous debates on sport, of which there have been a number over the years that I have been here, there has certainly been a bipartisan approach on those particular issues. What a pity, however, that the honourable member for Perth did not address himself to some of the specifics raised by the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) in relation to the Government's actual performance, because one of the things that have distinguished debates on sport in this House this year has been the very wide gap between the rhetoric of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) on the subject of his and the Government's attitudes towards sport and the actual performance of this Government in relation to sport. When the honourable member for Lindsay (Mr Free) gave notice of this motion on 22 February this year, he did it, I am sure, in a full and genuine flush of enthusiasm for certain sporting achievements within Australia and he put forward, I am sure, the very best notice of motion that he could. However, a number of months have elapsed since then and a couple of other things have happened, notably the 1985-86 Budget. It is on that point that the Government can be measured. The honourable member for Perth made liberal reference during his speech to repeating sections of the debate on the Australian Sports Commission Bill, a debate that took place in May of this year. I shall be coming back to an aspect of that debate very shortly. Critically an issue in that debate, an issue very much at odds between the Government and the Opposition, was whether the Minister's second reading speech on that Bill was borne out by the actual provisions of the Bill. The Opposition asserted very strongly, and continues to assert, that the fancy claims made for the Bill in the second reading speech and then further claims made by the Minister in his reply in the second reading debate were not borne out by the actual provisions of the Bill. We doubted that they would be borne out in the practice that would follow the enactment of that Bill, and we wait to see some matters in relation to that. It is, however, I think worth looking at what actual performances are. The honourable member for Lindsay made special reference in his motion to Government support for the Brisbane City Council's bid to stage the 1992 Olympic Games. I reiterate that notice of this motion was given on 22 February and I just place on the record of the House that there was an election for the Brisbane City Council on 31 March following that notice of motion. At the time it might have seemed a rather nice boost for the Brisbane City Council which was then, of course, a Labor administration. In the March election, the Labor administration was defeated. There is now a Liberal administration in Brisbane pursuing Brisbane's bid for the 1992 Olympic Games. The honourable member for Lindsay in his speech made a brief reference to the actual commitment of the Government. I would like to spell that out just a little more so that people, particularly the people of Brisbane, can understand the nature of that commitment. My figures vary a little from those of the honourable member for Lindsay. I am sure that whoever is in error-and I am sure that it was him-it was an error made in good faith. I contacted the Brisbane City Council this morning for some up to date figures and the figures I cite are the figures I was given today. They are close enough to those given by the honourable member for Lindsay. The Commonwealth Government's commitment is a type of underwriting. It is committed to $67m in 1984 dollars as a contribution towards the games if they are held in Brisbane. However, the commitment has a very significant qualification; that is, the money must be repaid from the revenue earned by the games. The support of the Federal Government is nevertheless very welcome, but it takes some very particular forms and it is worth noting what they are. The Commonwealth Government has committed itself to bringing forward some of its acquisition programs, programs that it would have undertaken any way, for the purpose of meeting demands and Commonwealth Government responsibilities in relation to an Olympic Games-for example, the purchase of vehicles because Commonwealth vehicles will by used by certain people during the games. Certain loan funds programs will be advanced, for example, for Telecom Australia. Other than that the Commonwealth will be meeting a commitment for what are Commonwealth functions, that is, in relation to visiting heads of state, security and so on. That is all essential to the staging of an Olympic Games and I am sure that Brisbane and Australia are glad that the Commonwealth Government has committed itself to it. However, I point out that, whilst it is essential and it is welcome, it is not really an act of generosity. Certain programs are being undertaken that would be undertaken anyway and in any event all the money will be repaid by the Olympic Games Foundation. The second point that I said a minute ago I would raise relates to certain things that were said in debate on the Australian Sports Commission Bill. At the end of my speech on that Bill I made a statement which does not appear in Hansard. The print gremlins got to Hansard for that particular daily edition. I was some days later contacted by Hansard-I had not realised that some of my speech was omitted from Hansard-with an apology and an explanation of what had happened. A substantial part of my speech just does not appear in the Hansard, although it is in the Department's records and will appear in the weekly Hansard. However, the weekly Hansard for that date is not yet available, so the actual public record of my speech is what appears in the daily Hansard. As I recall, at the end of my speech I called on the Minister to cut the apron strings for the Australian Sports Commission and I posed a rhetorical question: `Or are they puppeteer's strings?' That was very much in line with the theme of my speech which was that I did not believe the Australian Sports Commission, as structured, would be independent of the Government. That was a concern expressed by the Opposition at the time and reiterated in the amendment that we move to the motion before the House today. There is reference to what I had said in following speeches by various members of the Government but my words are not actually in the Hansard. One can, however, read the references that Government members made on that occasion. I was therefore a little startled to receive from the Australian Sports Commission a few weeks later, a letter taking exception to my speech and particularly to my views given in that section of it which was not in the Hansard. I have a passing curiosity as to who stirred the Sports Commission to take exception to a part of my speech which does not appear in the public record as yet. At the time of the debate I was not worried at all about the misrepresentation of my speech by Government members, because I believed everything would appear in black and white. The Minister's second reading speech is in black and white, as is his reply, all our speeches, and the Bill; it is all there. The allegations and assertions that I made about the Minister's claims and about the Bill are all in black and white. When people made very derogatory reference to me further on in the debate, I was not worried; others could read what I said. They could see what the facts were. However, that is, of course, not what has happened. Because of an omission from Hansard, my words are not yet on the public record and indeed I do not have a copy of the precise words that I used in that section of the speech. Nevertheless, the Australian Sports Commission has come by them somehow-not from me; no request was made to me. The fact that my statements were misrepresented by Government members as denigrating individuals on the Australian Sports Commission was something I felt I could wear at the time of the debate because my speech did not misrepresent or denigrate members of the Australian Sports Commission. The honourable member for Perth referred earlier today to Herb Elliott and said that I had described him as a mere puppet. I did nothing of the sort. I said that I feared that the Minister would not allow these great Australian sportsmen and women the independence that they could certainly use to the benefit of Australian sport in Australia, an independence that was in no way guaranteed by the Bill. This might seem a recanvassing of a previous debate. I point out that all Government speakers have chosen to broaden the debate today to the subject of the Australian Sports Commission. I am not concerned about the letter from the Australian Sports Commission, because in due course it will know how it has been misled about what I said in that debate, if it indeed takes the trouble to check the facts. There is one other reference I want to make to that debate, that is, the Minister's reply to the second reading debate. He said in his reply that the money for the Sports Commission would be audited properly. He said: It will be audited by this Commission in the best possible way independently to see that sport is the winner and that money is not used . . . as a means of political patronage. Those words I emphasise to the House. The Minister was trying to ensure, or was saying that he was trying to ensure, that sports money not be used as a means of political patronage. I urge the House again to compare the Minister's rhetoric with his performance. I draw to the attention of the House the Minister's actual performance on money spent under the national standards sports facilities program, the disbursement of moneys throughout Australia, and in particular the disbursement to the Minister's electorate. An amount of $8.29m, or 31 per cent of the $27m earmarked by this Government for projects under its three-year national standards sports facilities program, will be spent in the electorate of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. I repeat: 31 per cent of the total amount of money for the three-year program is being spent in the Minister's electorate. I wonder whether all Government members realise that. When in Opposition one does not expect too many favours, although one would hope one's constituents and their applications and claims are dealt with on their merits. However, sport can be a pork-barrelling portfolio, and this is surely a classic example of pork-barrelling. If I were a Government member, I would expect the money to be going round a little better than that. There were 44 projects considered. The Minister gets in his own electorate nearly one-third of the national total of a three-year program. That project has so far received 68 per cent of the $12m allocated for the first two years-$3.35m out of $5m in the first year and $4.82m out of the $7m allocated in the second year. This Cumberland Oval has already received 30 per cent of this entire sporting program even though only 44 per cent has so far been allocated. Something happened to the Minister's good intentions between his reply in the second reading debate on the Australian Sports Commission Bill and the actual disbursement of that money. The Minister therefore has very little credibility on the subject. I turn just briefly to the Budget and the reference I made to it earlier. The honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), in speaking on this motion, made certain points. I would like to draw them out and emphasise them. The fact is that the Minister has overwhelmingly looked after the bureaucrats in the allocation of money from the sports budget. Back on 21 February 1985 the Minister made a statement on television. He said: . . . starting from August, after the next Budget, we'll have a Sports Talent Plan worth $3 1/2m . . . The next day the honourable member for Lindsay moved notice of this motion in the House. The Budget preliminary estimate of expenditure for the sports talent plan is not the $3.5m that the Minister had referred to more than once; it is $483,200. After allowance for salaries, it is only $462,442. So much for the $3.5m promised more than once at the beginning of the year by the Minister. Salaries and administrative expenses for sport increased 34 per cent in this Budget over 1984-85. The money actually spent on sporting programs, in contrast, decreases 20.3 per cent: An increase for salaries of one-third; a decrease for actual sporting programs of one-fifth. The cost of the bureaucracy, as a percentage of the total sports budget, has increased from 9.4 per cent in 1984-85 to 14.9 per cent in 1985-86. The Minister has taken good care of his employees-better care than of Australian sportsmen and women. I have referred to the sports talent plan which will get an actual allocation of $462,442 for programs as against the promised $3.5m. Assistance for national sporting organisations represents a decrease on 1984-85 funding of 16.3 per cent. As both the honourable member for Richmond and I said at the beginning, we have some sympathy with the Government members who leaped feet first into this motion today. Back in last February they thought things were good and were going to remain good, but they have not turned out so well. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! It is now 1.45 p.m. In accordance with standing order 109, as amended for this session, the debate on the motion is interrupted. Motion (by Mr John Brown) agreed to: That the time for the discussion of notices under General Business be extended until 2 p.m. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(1.45) —It gives me great pleasure to join my colleagues the honourable members for Lindsay (Mr Free) and the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth) in supporting the motion before the House this afternoon. They have already clearly demonstrated the Hawke Government's total commitment to Australian sport and the role played by the honourable member for Parramatta, the Minister for Sport, Tourism and Recreation (Mr John Brown), as the Government's prime emissary. But before taking this Government's commitment a step further by illustration I would just like to pick up a couple of the points raised by honourable members opposite. It is interesting to note that the daring double from the Opposition who spoke in this debate today are the same daring double who spoke in total opposition to the Australian Sports Commission Bill when it came before this House. I turn firstly to the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt). We in this House all know, because we saw it written down, that he was formerly the Opposition spokesman on sport and recreation. Mr John Brown —He got the flick. Mr MARTIN —He did such a scintillating job that, as the Minister points out, he got the flick in the latest reshuffle. Why? Why indeed! Possibly it had something to do with the fact not one question on sport and recreation was directed to the Minister in this House. Indeed, how many Bills or how many sport and recreation issues did he speak on in this House? The answer is: One. What did he say on that day? He came out in total opposition to a magnificent Bill put forward by this Government to establish the Australian Sports Commission. It is interesting just to look at some of the things that were said in his speech here today. In fact I am quite pleased to see the honourable beacon from Deakin is sitting in the House because I think he could probably give a few lessons in economics to the honourable gentleman to take up the challenge of drying out his soggy colleagues. The honourable member for Richmond was saying that the Government has not spent enough on sport. That was taken up also by the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan). Yet these are people from an Opposition which is supposedly turning to the right, turning to the dries-probably with Dri-glo towels-and supposedly wants to see reductions in public expenditure. Yet those opposite are saying that the Government has not spend enough on sport. I would say that that is nonsense. It is a contradiction in terms. There is not much else I can say in respect of the speech by the honourable member for Richmond. I had a pad ready to take down some notes, and that is what it looks like-it is blank-because what he had to say was not worth responding to. The honourable member for Moncrieff, on the other hand, for the first twelve-and-a-half minutes of her speech talked in some confused terms about misreporting in Hansard or the non-printing of speeches in Hansard. That is terrific. But she also made some comment about the 1992 Brisbane Games. She was at pains to point out that the Government's undertaking is based on a premise that there should be a repayment of some of those expenditures from profits. It is interesting that she was being somewhat critical of this because I think it goes to the heart of some of the particular propositions being put forward by those opposite at the moment about privatisation and about drying out the economy. At the last Olympic Games massive profits were made. Now this Government is saying: `All right, in 1992 Brisbane gets the games. Fantastic; let us have them up there. Let us make a profit, and the money that comes back can pay back the Government'. Is that not really what privatisation is all about? The honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) perhaps could talk to the honourable member for Moncrieff and give her some of his dry theories on that particular subject. Cumberland Oval was also mentioned. Again I think this is an important point. The honourable member for Moncrieff said that Cumberland Oval was located in the Minister's electorate and that some on this side should feel somewhat upset that money was not directed to our areas. That is a load of absolute nonsense, because the determination of where that particular sporting facility would go was based on priorities set by the New South Wales Government and was done after careful consideration of every aspect of where a major sporting facility of that type should be located in Sydney. It was to the Government's credit that the western suburbs were chosen because all of us from New South Wales know that the centre of Sydney now is not the central business district but Parramatta. That is the population centre of Sydney and the geographical centre of Sydney. As 36 per cent of the population of Australia is located in New South Wales, why should not 30 per cent of the money under these Budget allocations go to New South Wales? I come back to Parramatta and Cumberland Oval, even if it will be the home of the Eels. Cumberland Oval, located as it is in the western suburbs, is really going to provide the people of the western suburbs-where all the Aussie battlers live and where there are very few facilities-with access to a magnificent sporting venue which will enable them to enjoy their leisure time in comfort and with dignity. Why should these people of the western suburbs not be given that same opportunity? Mr Beale —What about the southern suburbs? Mr MARTIN —That is coming too. The honourable member for Deakin has raised the southern suburbs. Let us talk about the Illawarra. Let us talk about the $713,000 that the Minister has made available for the development of a major sporting facility at Brandon Park in Wollongong which happens to be in the electorate of Macarthur, and I thank the Minister publicly here because of this Government's ability to know where the disadvantaged of Australia live-the western suburbs of Sydney and the Illawarra, the area of Australia worst affected by the recession. Yet this Government, through steel industry assistance programs and sport and recreation programs, is going to redress those problems and is going to do it in the correct manner. I move on to illustrate again some of the developments which this Government has put in place for the benefit of Australia. The honourable member for Lindsay in his introduction talked about sport and recreation for the disabled and alluded to that particular program which this Government has a great belief in. I would just like, in the time remaining, to talk about that and perhaps a couple of other issues as well. A national committee on sport and recreation for the disabled was established in 1981 to advise the Minister on matters relating to the development of sport and recreation for disabled people. I am sure we would all agree that is a most laudable aim. Its primary function is to make recommendations to the Minister on the priority areas for the development of sport and recreation for disabled people and on the allocation of funds provided to assist sport and recreation for disabled people. The Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism administers the program of assistance for sport and recreation for disabled people based on the advice of that particular committee. In 1984-85, $700,000 was allocated to this program. A total of $549,756 was granted to various sport, recreation and community organisations involved in the provision of sport and recreation facilities and programs for disabled people and in research associated with the participation of disabled people in sport and recreation activities. This is tangible evidence of this Government's commitment not only to the elite sportsmen and women of Australia but to the various groups including the disabled and children. I will come to children in sport and what we have done for them in a moment. Two new programs, incidentally, have been designed to assist disabled sports people; they were also implemented in 1984-85. They were the national disabled athlete award scheme and the elite disabled athlete assessment centre program, and a total of $150,000 was allocated to those two programs. Mr John Brown —The previous Government ignored them. Mr MARTIN —Of course. As the Minister rightly points out, the previous Government totally ignored the needs of disabled sportsmen and women, the needs of children in our sporting circles, and the needs of sportsmen generally. The honourable member for Perth gave ample evidence of just how it approached this issue. I come to 1985-86. The honourable member for Moncrieff used figures. Statistics can do wonderful things. They can point out where money has gone and how it supposedly represented a decrease, or whatever. But in 1985-86, $850 000 was allocated to the program of assistance for sport and recreation for the disabled. That is an increase over the previous year. Of this amount, $150 000 is to go towards matching an equivalent amount from the New South Wales Government and the Westfield corporation. That should appeal to the dries. Here we go again. Private enterprise is going to support sporting fraternities in this country and is going to do the right thing. Great stuff! A major sporting event for disabled people, to be known as the Westfield Challenge 1985, is to be conducted. This event will integrate disabled and able-bodied sportsmen in a range of activities. There will be amputees, blind athletes, paraplegics, quadriplegics and deaf athletes in such events as track and field, swimming, basketball, weightlifting, table tennis and archery. Again this cleary illustrates that there is a combination of government and private enterprise in doing something for Australian sport which the previous Government under no circumstances was prepared to face up to and do anything about. I would also like to talk about young people and children in sport, because this is most important. If we look at the figures today we see, for example, that there has been an increase, from 350 000 to 550 000, in young people playing cricket in Australia in the last 12 months. In netball-and this is a subject near and dear to my heart because I go along every Saturday morning to watch my 11-year-old go around a netball court-there has been an increase in registered players around Australia from 400 000 to 700 000. These are young people who are being encouraged by the programs of this Government to become actively involved. Why should they do it? It is because it encourages a healthy lifestyle. It encourages people to get out and to participate. It encourages young Austraians to become people we can be proud of, people who are going to give something back to this country in later life. As I pointed out in the debate on Sports Commission Bill, because of this, because of our encouragement from this side of the House to people to become healthy and fitter, people will live longer and therefore will enjoy the fruits of their early training. This Government also has been very involved in developing modified rules for these young men and women of Australia-the people who are going to become the elite and the people in sporting fraternities who are just enjoying the game for their own benefit. We have kanga cricket and we have minkey-a range of such things. This Government talks to the experts in the field of sport. We do not just put things forward and say: `This is what you do'. We liaise through the various programs that we have developed and we say to these people: `How can we the influence young men and women of Australia? How can we get them involved?' We get them involved because we talk about these modified rules. It is most important that we do this because it gives them a sense of participation. It gives them this sense of belonging. It also given them fitness, it develops them mentally and physically and it gives them a sense of competition and a sense of well-being. In the 30 seconds or so left to me I would just like finally to compliment the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism who has done a magnificent job and who, as I said at the outset, has been the emissary of this Government in promoting sport and recreation. The honourable member for Lindsay and the honourable member for Perth spoke earlier about what a great job he had done. He was at the Australia Games. He was there because he was the Minister responsible, and he was doing a great job when he was there. He is the man who has taken sport and recreation to the forefront of Australia, and I commend him for it. I conclude by saying that he does it because he knows that he has the full backing of this Government, the full backing of the members on this side, and that he represents all the people in Australia who are interested in and tied up with sports. He has at heart the interest of every sporting man and woman in Australia and particularly he represents the views of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), who I am pleased to see has come into the House. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It is now 2 p.m. In accordance with standing order 104, as amended for this session, the time allotted for precedence to General Business has expired. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day under General Business for the next sitting. Mr SPEAKER —I advise the House that in regard to the delay in the publication of the daily Hansards this week the Principal Parliamentary Reporter has informed me that between Tuesday night and this morning the Government Printing Office again experienced serious problems in the use of the new typesetting equipment installed during the winter recess. All the Hansard copy has been processed by the Hansard staff, forwarded to the Printing Office on schedule and typeset; but, because of a major equipment problem that occurred on Tuesday night, it was not possible to transfer the Hansard material from the typesetting process to the printing process. That problem has now been solved. Tuesday's Senate Hansard was printed this morning. Tuesday's House of Representatives Hansard, which includes a very large number of answers to questions on notice, is being printed now and should be available late this afternoon. Yesterday's House of Representatives Hansard will not be available until tomorrow morning. Mr HOWARD —Will the Prime Minister condemn the action of the Australian Council of Trade Unions in supporting the refusal of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union to pay a fine imposed by the Federal Court of Australia? Mr HAWKE —I have had cause, on the maiden appearance of the Leader of the Opposition, to tell him, I hope with the appropriate amount of gentleness, that it is impertinent for him and those behind him to intrude in any way into the area of industrial relations. The Opposition stands condemned on two very relevant grounds. The first is its abysmal performance in government which produced the worst industrial relations record in the history of this country. Not having learned from that, the Opposition secondly stands condemned on the basis that it is again prescribing for this country a repetition of industrial relations policies which would again plunge this country into industrial and economic chaos. We have the lowest level of industrial disputation we have had for 17 years and it has produced record economic results and employment growth. In regard to record economic growth, let me refer to the maiden statement of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in his exalted capacity as shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I imagine that very few members of the House would so have arranged their priorities as at this stage to have got around to reading his Press release, but it is something that honourable members have denied themselves. In my usual charitable nature, I will share my joy and amusement with them. I will tell the House what the shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, the man who is in charge of the Opposition's employment and industrial relations policy, had to say about today's employment figures. I remind the House of just what those figures are. There has been a further increase of 20,000 people in employment, which brings the total increase since the National Economic Summit of 1983 to 430,000. Because there was a return to a high level of participation, as more people felt that in an environment of growth they could return to the work force, even with the increase of 20,000 in employment there was a slight increase in the unemployment rate from 8.2 per cent to 8.3 per cent. That is down a full two points from what the previous Government left to this country. What is the contribution of the Opposition's spokesman on the area of employment and industrial relations? This is what the Opposition had to say: The rise in the unemployment rate shown by today's figures is disturbing. The unemployment rate has increased from 8.2 per cent to 8.3 per cent, and is now the same as in February. Honourable members opposite cannot bring themselves, because of this Government's economic policies-central to which are the prices and incomes accord and to overwhelming support of the trade union movement-to contrast the present situation with their last year in office when they destroyed 160,000 jobs and added a quarter of a million people to the number of people unemployed in this country. They cannot bring themselves to face the fact that this Government is well ahead of the target which the current Leader of the Opposition said in 1983 would never be achieved. We promised this country that through a sensible industrial relations policy we would create an additional half a million jobs. Because honourable members opposite were the practitioners of economic disaster they became the soothsayers of doom and gloom. They cannot bring themselves to face up to the fact that our industrial relations policies have been central to producing this result. I do not avoid the particular question to which the Leader of the Opposition goes. As the Opposition looks over this new landscape of industrial tranquillity brought about by our industrial relations policies and avoids the general outcome, what does it do? It puts its miserable little prisms into its miserable little eyes, looks around and asks: `Can I see an industrial dispute somewhere?' `Yes', it says, `I found one'. People think that Mudginberri is a wild fruit! In the Opposition's desperate search across this sea of tranquillity it finds a dispute and says that it is this dispute that will bring this country to a halt and will stop the record economic and employment growth created under our policy. I will tell honourable members opposite about Mudginberri. I do not think the conduct of the Mudginberri dispute reflected very much credit on either side. As the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has said, we have tried consistently to get that dispute where it should be-in the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The one great regret of honourable members opposite is that the dispute has now got back to where it ought to have been in the first place-in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. If the Opposition really has a concern about the welfare of this country it will not try to ferment and foment trouble, but will say to both sides: `Go back and stay in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission until you have it settled'. In that way Mudginberri will be like the rest of Australia-functioning infinitely better in the industrial relations field than it ever did under the Opposition's miserably misguided policies. Ms JAKOBSEN —I ask the Prime Minister: Will the Government raise the 13.5 per cent ceiling on home loan interest rates? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the honourable member for her question. At the outset of my answer I say quite unequivocally that the Government will not be raising the present ceiling on housing loan interest rates. Having said that, I suppose that we are entitled to ask: What is the position of the Opposition? Again, given the very well established reputation I have, as I say, for sharing the goodies with others, I wonder whether all members of the House have taken the opportunity of reading today's issue of the Australian Financial Review. If they have not, they should. In it there is an article which I believe will remain a collector's item until the end of this century. I go to this article because it is the initial interview with the shadow Treasurer. Having stated quite clearly what our policy is I go to the interview with this shadow Treasurer to find out what the Opposition's policy would be in this regard. Before I tell honourable members exactly what he had to say I should share with them the assessment made by the interviewer. Having had the opportunity of sitting and listening to the drivel that came from the shadow Treasurer, this is what Mr Hywood had to say: The new shadow Treasurer does not consider the handling of fiscal and monetary policy to be the essence of economic policy- Mr Carlton —You want to read the interview. Mr HAWKE —I am going to that; the honourable member should now worry. I am going to the interview and he should be shrivelling at the thought of anyone going to it. This is the summary of what Mr Hywood had to say: But Mr Carlton's decidedly woolly views are now firmly within the mainstream of Australian politics and must be treated more seriously . . . I must say that it is a bit of an insult to a sheep to describe the shadow Treasurer's thinking as `woolly'. What did the shadow Treasurer have to say? He said that the Government should have raised the ceiling on housing interst rates earlier. He said that the ceiling does not work. I say not merely to the shadow Treasurer but also to his justifiably departing Leader that not only this Government but also the people of Australia will be asking the Opposition: `What do you really mean about your policy on interest rates in general and what is your policy in particular?'. Mr Hodgman —What did you mean when you said that they would come down? Mr HAWKE —The honourable member for Denison interrupts. All I say to him is that he should be asking a question-a not entirely original one-of his Leader and it should be this: `Why do you hate Tasmania?' It is quite clear what the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer-if the Leader of the Opposition is going to take any notice of him at all-will do. They advocate the lifting of the ceiling on interest rates and that lifting of the ceiling would impose a massive hardship on millions of Australian home buyers. The policy mix proposed by the Leader of the Opposition and stated by the shadow Treasurer in that interview, which I will finalise in a moment, is to remove the ceiling, pursue a stricter monetary policy and reduce real wages. The quite inevitable outcome of that is that the home buyer, for whom the Leader of the Opposition was shedding such crocodile tears, would be facing a much greater outcome than the $10 about which he was crying yesterday. This would be a devastating outcome for the home buyers of Australia and every home buyer knows it. If the Opposition ever had the opportunity to introduce that policy that would be the outcome. Finally, I refer to the last part of the interview to which the shadow Treasurer so proudly wants us to go. I will go to the finish of that interview. Mr Hywood of the Australian Financial Review asked him a question about our monetary policy. He said: But is the current monetary policy adequate? That was the question the interviewer put to the shadow Treasurer. Do honourable members know what the shadow Treasurer's answer was? He said: Could I dodge that one . . . Mr Carlton —Read the rest of it. Read it all out. Mr HAWKE —The shadow Treasurer wants me to read on; so I will. I did not know he wanted more. He is a masochist as well as an economic illiterate. He said: Could I dodge that one for the moment because I simply have to have discussions with colleagues on that. We have a Leader of the Opposition who imposed the most disastrous economic policy in the history of this country. To sustain him now he has as his right hand economic spokesman a man who does not quite yet know what appropriate monetary policy is. We can wait. The Australian people will wait because they know that the Opposition will never have the opportunity to bring its policy in. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Prime Minister to his answer to my previous question in which he refused to condemn the action of the Australian Council of Trade Unions in supporting the refusal of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union to pay a fine imposed by the Federal Court of Australia. I ask the Prime Minister: How does he maintain this silence in view of the comments made yesterday by Mr Justice Lockhart that anarchy will prevail if trade unions do not obey the law, that the meat employees union is on a collision course with the laws and institutions of Australia and that this union has been guilty of criminal contempt? Mr HAWKE —I made it clear in the answer to the first question from the Leader of the Opposition that I believe the conduct of the parties on both sides in this issue has not been creditable. I do not depart from that. As distinct from those on the other side of this House, we have not been engaged in an exercise of trying to get political capital one way or the other on this. From the very beginning my outstanding Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has been seeking assiduously, by discussions with everyone involved, to get the parties to the table so that there could be a resolution of this matter. With his co-operation I attempted to have a meeting in the Cabinet room of this Parliament with the parties involved, offering the good services of the Government to get this matter resolved. Those running this dispute-it is not the man himself who is running it; we know that he is surrounded by the National Farmers Federation and others-have got hold of this unfortunate dispute and they are trying to escalate it into something much more than it intrinsically deserves to be-have therefore refused to meet with us. The Leader of the Opposition talks about obeying the law. Before getting to the stage of having legal judgments, if those people had been prepared to deal with the dispute by coming and having disscussions and negotiations, as was offered, the matter could have been resolved. I repeat: I trust that in the conciliation and arbitration process this matter will be resolved. If good sense is displayed by both sides it is my belief and the belief of the Government that this matter can be resolved in a way which deals not only with the dispute itself but also with the judgments that have been made by the courts that have been brought into this matter. Mr BILNEY —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, relates also to artful dodging. I refer the Minister to the question which I asked him yesterday regarding action in South Africa announced by President Reagan on 9 September. Is this action by President Reagan anything other than token, as we heard it described in this House yesterday? Is it just nominal? Is it just minuscule? Mr HAYDEN —I can well understand the concern of the honourable member that one should be so dismissive as to use the adjectives `token', `nominal' and `minuscule' to describe the actions of the President of the United States of America in introducing policy sanctions against the South African Government. I particularly remind honourable members of what I said yesterday. In introducing these sanctions the President of the United States of America, in his formal declaration, was moved to describe them in this way: . . . actions of the Government of South Africa constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat . . . He went on to talk about the introduction of a national emergency. So, quite clearly, he did not see his actions as token, nominal or minuscule. I think it is casually offensive and gratuitiously abusive of anyone to describe those actions in that way. Accordingly, I understand the concern of the honourable member in raising this question. I note from this morning's Canberra Times that Mr Goodall, the foreign affairs commentator for that newspaper, quotes the Leader of the Opposition, commenting on the initiatives of the United States Administration: Let's be realistic. Do you really think in the balance of things that the measures announced by President Reagan are anything other than token? That is calculatedly offensive. Then in an Australian Associated Press interview last night-I stress last night because there is a relevant matter I want to raise in a few minutes-we read: Mr Howard described the United States sanctions as nominal, and `minuscule' . . . Of course, we must understand the position of the Leader of the Opposition. On the 5th of this month, when the paint was scarcely dry on his new position as Leader of the Opposition, he appeared on an Australian Broadcasting Corporation television show, the Carleton Walsh Report-that is television the way it used to be in the good old days of the 1950s-and said this: We don't believe in economic sanctions. That is his position. We know he is a man toughly committed to policies which are determined on principle and from which, once having been determined, nothing will budge him because he is, after all, honest. He has told us so himself. But, interestingly enough, in the AAP interview yesterday he went on to say: There is nothing that I have said in the past in respect of these matters that says we would never have a look at it- that is, at sanctions. The report goes on to say: Asked if any changes were likely, Mr Howard added: `I am saying that we will obviously have a look at it in the light of the new circumstances'. What are the new circumstances? They are not that the situation in South Africa has deteriorated. It has been grim, unacceptable and dreadful for too long. Night by night we have seen the dreadful bloodiness of what is going on there under that repressive administration. We have seen the Leader of the Opposition try to slide away from any responsible position in opposition to this. We have watched country after country in the West, most recently those of the European Economic Community, and the United States Administration, declare their opposition. So what was the change of circumstances? The change of circumstances was that he was nailed on this at Question Time yesterday. What do we find about this man of principle, honest Johnny Howard, who shuffles up to the dispatch box at Question Time to stand on two Sydney telephone books and declare that he is a man of integrity and commitment and will never shift? We find that he is in fact moving backwards on policy. I can well understand the concern of the honourable member in raising this matter. I repeat what I said yesterday. The opportunity is over-ripe for the Leader of the Opposition to stand up and declare on principle where he and his Party stand on this matter. Does he stand on a bipartisan platform as did his predecessor, as did Prime Minister Fraser and as did Prime Minister Whitlam? Does he stand on bipartisanship with this Government as this Government, when in opposition, did with the last conservative Government? The final bit of advice I give to the Leader of the Opposition is to tell him that, instead of trying to posture as he goes into antediluvian reactionary political positions, he should look at the statement released by his immediate predecessor, now his spokesman on foreign affairs, on this subject only a few weeks ago. There he will see how to word a statement carefully so as not to get into the jam that he is in. He is likely to have himself and his Party in opposition isolated in the Western world in this totally unacceptable position of perhaps being seen as an apologist for, and providing accommodation for, the apartheid-imposing administration of South Africa. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister, and I refer to his two previous answers on the Mudginberri dispute. How does the Prime Minister maintain that this dispute can be totally resolved if it goes back to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission when the very agreement entered into between the employer and employees, which is unacceptable to the Australian Council of Trade Unions, was in fact sanctioned by that same Conciliation and Arbitration Commission? Mr HAWKE —The tragedy underlying this question is that the Leader of the Opposition understands as much about industrial relations as does his shadow Treasurer about economics. It is totally within the capacity of the Australian Conciliaton and Arbitration Commission and the parties before that Commission to settle this matter fully. In case the Leader of the Opposition does not know it, let me just give him a kindergarten lesson, because he is certainly not beyond that stage, in industrial relations and industrial law. The core issue can be heard by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Does the Leader of the Opposition believe that the Commission would take the issue back before itself if it cannot deal with it? He should just use his brains for a moment, if he can, and put his prejudices in the basket. Of course it can deal with the whole issue and it can ask the parties, in considering the issue, what may be done about the other things that have arisen in the course of the dispute. It is possible that, in coming to a decision by the processes of conciliation and arbitration, dealing with the decision that has been made by another court on another aspect of this matter, it can be accommodated within the processes of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Mr Howard —Ha, ha! Mr HAWKE —The Leader of the Opposition laughs but it is a laugh that comes from deep well springs of ignorance. He knows nothing about the issue. I am simply saying that it is our hope on this side of the House that those processes of conciliation and arbitration will produce, under the guidance of the Commission, a total resolution of this matter. Whether that happens will not depend upon the capacity of the conciliation and arbitration processes; it will depend upon the readiness or the capacity of the parties to the dispute. I hope that both sides, the unions and employers involved and those advising them, will so exercise their good sense as to take advantage of those processes of conciliation and arbitration to resolve this matter finally. Mr BEDDALL —My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Will he advise the House what progress has been made in the family reunion program with Vietnam? How adequate are the services for the Vietnamese community living in Queensland? Mr HURFORD —By way of preamble, I should like to pay tribute to the work done by the honourable member for Rankin in helping to settle Vietnamese-Australians in Brisbane. This is of value not only to the Vietnamese Australians but also the wider Australian community. The honourable member asked me about the progress with family reunions from Vietnam. I am happy to say that the administrative arrangements have improved. We have moved our base for the interviewing teams from Hanoi to Bangkok. There are now much more frequent visits and more visiting teams. I have also had further discussions with the Vietnamese Ambassador here in Australia and with senior Vietnamese officers. The follow-up work of the Australian Ambassador in Vietnam, Mr Richard Broinowski, has been enormously helpful. However, there is a limitation to what we can achieve. We have to rely on the Vietnamese Government for the appropriate lists and for people being made available for interview. We need its co-operation. The latest cables from Vietnam give us cause for optimism. Whereas in 1984-85 there were about 2,700 family reunions from Vietnam, we are confident that this year the figure will be nearer to 4,000. We are still hopeful that we can get the figure up to 5,000. It would be wonderful if we could manage 6,000. The honourable member for Rankin also asked me about services in Queensland for settling Vietnamese in the State. The story there is that my Department is providing a balance of services. We have a Vietnamese interpreter, a Vietnamese-speaking welfare officer, a bilingual information officer and a couple of social workers under the grant-in-aid scheme-one for the Indo-Chinese Refugee Association and one for the Vietnamese community of Queensland. Sadly, the story is not the same when it comes to the services provided by the Queensland Government. It has not given a high priority to welfare support services for migrants, as have other State governments. For example, the level of language training and funding to ethnic organisations in Queensland is significantly less than it is in any other State. It is the same old story: The standard of service in areas of caring for people's needs in Queensland is worse than anywhere else in Australia. Mr PORTER —Is the Minister for Health aware of comments made yesterday by Professor Penington that there has been an unacceptable expansion of private diagnostic services as a result of bulk billing and Professor Penington's claim that `universal bulk billing will have to disappear'? In the light of Professor Penington's comments will the Minister now reverse his disastrous decision to introduce universal bulk billing and stop this Government's sponsored rip-off? Dr BLEWETT —I have a great respect for the views of Professor Penington, but I must say that on this particular issue he has brought no evidence, and I have seen no evidence, that there has been an expansion of diagnostic services as a result of bulk billing. There is now a considerable body of evidence resulting from an examination of the growth of medical services in this country in the 1970s and early 1980s. That evidence shows undoubtedly that while in each year there was an increase in the per capital utilisation of medical services that increase was steady year after year and was not affected whatsoever by any changes in the health insurance system. The evidence shows quite clearly that whether the system was universal bulk billing, no bulk billing or partial bulk billing there was no effect on the steady increase of the utilisation of medical services in this country. I am sure that when we get the evidence in detail for the present period the same will be true. Of course, it is supported by most of the evidence overseas. The major research studies from overseas show that unless there is a substantial co-payment of the order of 50 per cent the demand for medical services will not be affected significantly. Even then, the major study shows that the people affected by having to pay half their bill, who drop off from medical services, are overwhelmingly the poor and less well off. It has scarcely any effect on the better off section of the community. This Opposition makes no proposal that there should be a gap of 50 per cent which, on the overseas evidence, is the sort of figure one needs to affect demand. This Opposition says that there will be no universal bulk billing but that people will be able to take out cover for a 100 per cent gap payment. Let me tell honourable members what that does. Under the present system the tendency-I would like to see it more broadly, but it is only a tendency-is for the less well off to be bulk billed and the well off to pay the 15 per cent gap. If the Opposition introduces its system the well off will take out 100 per cent insurance and will have no payments and the less well off will have to pay the 15 per cent gap. That is how the Opposition will change the system. It will have no effect on the demand for services in this country, but it will have one other interesting effect; it will increase the income of doctors. Mr O'KEEFE —My question, addressed to the Minister for Communications, follows on from a question asked of the Minister earlier this week concerning the effects on country people of any proposal to sell off Telecom Australia. In his reply the Minister gave certain information as to the likely costs for subscribers, and subsequently the Leader of the Opposition accused the Minister of exaggerating the extent of cross-subsidy within Telecom. Can the Minister confirm that subscribers in rural, remote, provincial and outer suburban areas all benefit from the cross-subsidy and can the Minister provide justification for his public statements that the current level of cross-subsidy in these areas is approximately $500m? Mr DUFFY —I thank the honourable member for Burke for his question. The Leader of the Opposition recently criticised me for, in his words, `grossly exaggerating the cost of the cross-subsidy'. On the program Pressure Point on 22 August last the Leader of the Opposition claimed that the Davidson Public Inquiry into Telecommunication Services in Australia disrupted Telecom's estimates of the cross-subsidy. May I inform the House of the source of my claim for the figure of $500m. While conceding that there are a number of difficulties in the calculation, Telecom informs me that it has estimated the cross-subsidy for profit making services to loss making services for the financial year 1984-85 at $490m. Officials of my Department advise me that they know of no material that would support a figure of less than $490m. The figure of $490m was provided by Telecom to the Prices Surveillance Authority at its most recent inquiry into telecommunications tariffs. It is not correct for the Leader of the Opposition to claim as he has that the Davidson inquiry gives him any support for his refusal to face the facts on this matter. The estimate of the cross-subsidy in 1981-82-based, as I understand it, on the same footing as the current figure-was $290m. The Davidson report, when describing the cross-subsidy, reported Telecom's estimate for that particular year. It did not suggest that the figure was an overestimate, much less a gross exaggeration, to use the words of the Leader of the Opposition. On the contrary, the Davidson committee quoted other figures that implied that Telecom's figure of $290m might have very seriously underestimated the size of the cross-subsidy. It is about time the Leader of the Opposition stopped going around saying that the Davidson Committee of inquiry gives credence to the nonsense he has been peddling on this issue. I assure honourable members that the best estimate that officials can provide on the cross-subsidy is, as I have stated over and over, $490m. If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to argue another figure, as on so many other issues that have been put forward here today, it is time he came in here and put forward the figure and justified it. In closing, having regard to the criticism of the National Party's role in this matter, I am pleased to inform honourable members that one prominent member of the National Party has now come out strongly against this doctrinaire privatisation nonsense being peddled by the Liberal Party. It is interesting that he is a member of the National Party who knows a lot about this area-the former Opposition spokesman on communications, the honourable member for Murray. He put out a Press release on 6 September describing claims that the Opposition would privatise Telecom as `alarmist and untrue'. The release said `Nationals will not sell Telecom.' Mr Hawke —Another split. Mr DUFFY —It is on again, as the Prime Minister said. The honourable member for Murray went on to say: Telecom would retain its monopoly of the telephone network, which is the key safeguard for country people. It is very lucky that someone over there is worried about country people and the honourable member for Murray deserves to be congratulated for his stand. Three things must be said on this issue: Firstly, what the honourable member for Murray said is squarely at odds with the clear statements made by the Leader of the Opposition and his spokesman on Treasury matters, which the Prime Minister dealt with earlier today. Both those members have spoken directly of introducing the cream skimming operation in the high profit areas of Telecom's trunk routes. That is what they are on about. Secondly, as I said earlier, it is gratifying that one member of the National Party has had the guts to stand up for country people on this crucial issue. Thirdly, we all wait with great interest to see whether the Leader of the National Party will show the same courage and come out in defence of the people he purports to represent. Mr MACPHEE —My question is directed to the Minister for Communications and it stems from a genuine concern for the future of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I ask the Minister whether he is satisfied with the performance of the Board of the ABC which this Government appointed? Does the Managing Director of the ABC, Mr Geoffrey Whitehead-a person appointed by the Government's Board from a large field of applicants-have the total confidence of both the Government and the Board which appointed him? If so, is the Minister aware of an extraordinary meeting of the Board which has been called for next Thursday? Can he give the House any explanation about the purpose of that meeting? Will the Minister tell the House about Mr Whitehead's likely golden handshake if, as is widely believed, certain members of the Board use that meeting to press for Mr Whitehead's removal? Mr DUFFY —I thank the honourable member for his question and I take it in the spirit in which he said it was asked-as an expression of genuine concern for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I am aware of next Thursday's meeting to which the honourable member referred. It arises out of a somewhat extraordinary situation which has developed on the ABC Board. Mr Coleman —You should sack the Board. Mr DUFFY —The honourable member interjects that we should sack the Board. That is an interesting comment because it is typical again of the lack of understanding that he has of the ABC or, for that matter, of anything. Mr Hawke —He couldn't run the New South Wales Liberal Party; he couldn't run Norfolk Island. Mr DUFFY —As the Prime Minister has interjected, the honourable member had difficulty running the New South Wales Liberal Party and he had the same problem with Norfolk Island. There is a difficulty on the ABC Board at the moment which has been referred to by the shadow spokesman for communications. Time and time again in this House I have said that it is not the role of a Minister to express confidence or otherwise in a board that has been appointed while that board is attempting to do its job. However, if certain actions are not taken by the Board next Thursday, I think that it might find itself in a position where it is almost unworkable. In relation to the second part of the question dealing with confidence in the Managing Director, as a result of the actions of a Board member, the Managing Director at the moment has been placed, at the very least, in a very difficult position. If the Board is not prepared to support the Managing Director on that issue, I have no idea at the moment what action he will take. I sincerely hope that at the end of next Thursday the Board will have the good sense to support the Managing Director and therefore the problem that the honourable member has mentioned will not arise. Mr LEO McLEAY —Has the attention of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs been drawn to recent reports regarding possible fraudulent activities by immigration agents such as James Rouda and Solon Baltinos? What is the Minister's reaction to these reports and what action can he take to end the disgraceful rip-offs? Mr HURFORD —Yes, my attention has been drawn to claims made about the two gentlemen concerned and also about immigration agents generally. Last night the honourable member for Melbourne drew attention to a particular situation in Melbourne and the honourable member for Grayndler has been active in the media in relation to someone else. I want it known that on every possible occasion that charges are made against individuals these matters are put in the hands of the appropriate authorities-the State police force and the Australian Federal Police. I make no charges against anybody at this time but I believe it is right and proper for members of this Parliament to raise their concerns. I can assure honourable members that they are articulating concerns that I have had, ever since I took over this portfolio, about the role of agents under the Migration Act. I have said in the House and in other places that the Migration Act is under review to make it a more efficient document and so that we can give better services to the people. Part of that review relates to the agents, because they are mentioned in the Act. We wish to make a decision on whether there should be agents covered by particular sections of the Act; we wish to make decisions on whether they should be recognised or not. Section 46 of the Act covers agents now, but only those who are handling immigration into this country. It does not cover, for instance, agents making application for change of status on behalf of illegal migrants, or, indeed, agents acting in relation to the Immigration Review Panel. There is an anomaly there. Also, the fees are out of date. The Government is reviewing the whole Act, particularly this section of the Act. This was addressed in 1979 by the previous Government, but it proved too hard. The law societies of this country put up resistance to any change. However, this Government does not fail to take on some issues which are too hard and this one will be faced squarely as well. At a time when there are one million people seeking, at the most, 84,000 places in this country, unscrupulous people can take advantage of those people who want to use the Migration Act to bring people into this country. We want to approach this with a two-pronged attack: We want to simplify the procedures; and we want to address the problem of agents and do away with any recognition if needs be. It goes without saying that any suspicion of fraud will be put in the hands of the police as has been the case in the past. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Australian Capital Territory Gaming and Liquor Authority annual report for 1983-84. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Australian Capital Territory Registrar of Motor Vehicle Dealers annual report for 1984-85. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —For the information of honourable members, I also present the Australian Capital Territories Surveyors Board annual report for 1984-85. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —I have pleasure in tabling the zoning plan for the far northern section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. I will make a statement later in the day. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: National Flag 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 geopgraphical 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,Mr Hawker and Mr Shack. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The Humble Petition of the undersigned Citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That the overwhelming majority of Australians are completely satisfied with the existing Australian National Flag. 2. That we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as provided in Section (3) of the Flags Act, unless such proposed change is first voted on by the people of Australia and passed by a majority of voters in a majority of States. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. 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 existing Australian National Flag. 2. That we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as provided in Section (3) of the Flags Act, unless such proposed change is first voted on by the people of Australia and passed by a majority of voters in a majority of States. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatiaves 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 inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of the undersigned Citizens of Australia respectfully sayeth: That we the undersigned are totally opposed to any taxation change which involves a tax on Health Fund contributions, health charges of benefits; That we are already required to pay a 1 percent 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 Cobb,Mrs Darling and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the 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 benefits of all Australians. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Andrew and Mr Downer. 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 captial gains-which are simply deferred salaries-when they eventually sell these assets to sustain them in retirement; Your Petitioners request that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, will protect the right of private enterprise and reject any inequitable additional taxes. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Andrew and Mr Fife. 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 every pray. by Mr Blunt and Mr Drummond. 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 Worldpeace 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. Support the United Nations World Disarmament Campaign by allocating the equivalent of at least 10% of our military expenditure 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 domestic sewage-sludge and organic garbage with mineral-rich gravel dust, a by-product from rock quarries and mines, into hygienic humus, a natural fertiliser, for use in revitalising 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 Blunt and Dr Harry Edwards. 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 Worldpeace 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. 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 assisting the International Year of Peace in 1986 by reducing our military expenditure by at least 10%, and allocating this to fund environmental repair programs; (b) Implementing National Recycling Programs to reuse water, and to compost into hygienic humus all presently wasted sewage-sludge and organic garbage mixed with fine ground powder from mineral-rich rocks, to use as a natural fertiliser in revitalising impoverished soils; (c) Developing National Employment Programs to give priority to the planting and growing of forests, food-producing trees and other crops to assist the greening of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Charlesworth. 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 Worldpeace 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 reducing our military expenditure by at least 10% and allocating this to fund environmental repair programs; (b) Implementing National Recycling Programs to reuse water, and to compost into hygienic humus all presently wasted sewage-sludge and organic garbage 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 forests, food-producing trees and other crops to assist the greening of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. The Federal Labor Government's retirement income policies are piecemeal, inconsistent and make no provision to encourage people to save towards their retirement; 2. the Government's proposed assets test legislation is iniquitous and, if enacted, its effects would be discriminatory. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: 1. scrap its proposed assets test legislation; 2. either institute a broad enquiry into Australia's income and taxation systems or await the outcome of the work of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare on this matter; and 3. following the report of such a wide enquiry institute a retirement income policy which is fair and equitable, that encourages self-provision and which will be non-discriminatory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt and Mr Miles. To the Honourable the 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 every pray. by Mr Blunt and Mr Webster. To 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 brumby declared a protected species. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House follow the example of President Nixon in the U.S.A. by declaring our wild horse protected from industry and indiscriminate slaughter. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling and Mr Shack. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the 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 the 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 Fife and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House or 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 uniforn ad valorem rate, without any exemptions whatsoever. by Mr Hodgman and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and the honourable members of the House of Representatives in the 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 goegraphical location; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation. 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 give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a referendum. by Mr Rocher and Mr Tuckey. 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 proposal as outlined in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement to Extend the Proof and Experimental Range at Port Wakefield in South Australia, to proof 155mm projectiles will mean the aquisition of land between Port Wakefield and the southern communities of Port Parham and Webb Beach. That the existing Proof Range facilities provide ideal overwater recovery and are a valuable adjunct to the viability of the Port Wakefield community and the retention of community facilities such as the schools, Churches and retail outlets. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government should retain the Proof Range facilities at Port Wakefield and allow it to expand to meet the demands of proofing modern weaponry without undue impact on the citizens of Port Parham and Webb Beach. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Andrew. 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- 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 Accomodation 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. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Andrew. 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 deplore the proposed cut-back of funding for pre-school and child care in the mini-budget and urge that proposals for cuts in children's services are reversed'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Andrew. To the honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: I/We the undersigned do strongly protest against the continuing killing of wild horses in the Gulf of Carpentaria. by Mr Beale. To the honourable The Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia show: The people of Australia request that any tax reform in this country should be based on the capacity to pay. All reform should be aimed at widening the direct tax base and not at the levying of a regressive broad based consumption tax. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government will implement its proposed redistribution of wealth policy in a way that will have greater support for the lower income earners and social welfare recipients. by Mr Blanchard. To the honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that 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, 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 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 the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: As residents of the towns of Ayr and Home Hill and surrounding districts, your petitioners do humbly pray that the Australian Government, in recognition of the present plight of the sugar industry in our region and other parts of Australia, and in recognition of the importance of the industry to the economic and social well-being of our community, provide urgent financial assistance to that industry to ensure the survival and future viability of our local economy. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: We the undersigned humbly beseech the Government of our country not to allow so called ``Peace Studies'' material to be taught in our schools. We understand the N.S.W. Teacher's Federation has requested that a specific subject entitled ``Peace Studies'' be introduced. We are against this and any other form of peace studies literature or tuition in our schools. This includes the intergrating of such material in the existing curriculum. Your Petitioners request this and your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cobb. 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: We totally support the positions of the Australian Automobile Association of Australia in relation to its total opposition to- 1. The application of a fringe benefits tax on the private usage of company vehicles in the hands of the employer because the present Income Tax Assessment Act provides that these benefits should be taxed in the hand of the recipients and those measures are sufficient because the new vehicle market and employment levels will be severely affected in both the retail and factory sectors of the new vehicle market if this tax has to be paid by employers, and 2. Capital gains taxation extended beyond the present sections 25A and 26AAA of the Income Tax Assessment Act because application of these sections provides the basis for taxation to recover revenue from sale of assets acquired for profit making and/or short-term gain, hence no other action in necessary. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that no change in existing taxation legislation with respect to fringe benefits and capital gain be introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Conquest. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Australia respectfully show that: 1. We affirm our belief that, in Jesus Christ, human sexuality is placed in the context of mutual loving relationships and therefore Christians reject any form of pornography which depicts violence against adults and/or children and the economic, physical and spiritual exploitation which is basic to hard-core pornography. 2. We urge the Parliament to prohibit the importation or production of this kind of pornography. 3. We request the Parliament to continue a public enquiry during 1985 to report on the operation of Regulation 4A of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the A.C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983 in relation to video tapes and video discs which have been refused classification or classified ``X'' by the Film Censorship Board. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker, and Member of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we, being residents of Queensland, strongly condemn the situation that exists, where the Federal Government allows all pensioners to earn a certain amount a week or in an ``Earnings concession year'' to supplement their pension without affecting their entitlement to a full pension . . . then the Queensland State Government takes the money back as increased rent for Queensland Housing Commission rental houses and units. And your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the House of Representatives calls on the Queensland Government to adjust rents to rectify the anomaly that exists through their depletion of pensioners' earnings by increased rents. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of 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 every pray. by Mr Downer. 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 Andrew. 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. The Petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: 1. That we are completely dissatisfied with the pricing of petrol in this country; 2. That under a Labor Government petrol prices have continued to rise excessively, with recent Government decisions adding over 8c per litre to the price of petrol in some country areas; 3. The proposed consumption tax could lead to a further rise of 6c per litre; and 4. The high cost of petrol discriminates against country residents who rely on their cars for essential communication and transport. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government honour the commitment given by the Prime Minister during the 1983 election campaign to reduce petrol prices by 3c per litre. Further we strongly urge the Government to adopt a petrol pricing policy which does not cause unnecessary rises in the cost of petrol. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the many anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions brought to its notice, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitious and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: (1) That the overwhelming majority of Australians strongly support the reintroduction of compulsory National Service. (2) That the overwhelming majority of Australians believe that the options of Military and Civil National Service ought to be available. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Forthwith pass Commonwealth Legislation for the re-introduction of compulsory National Service. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hodgman. 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 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. 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 ever pray. by Mr Lee. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: (a) Parliament rejects all moves which lead to the establishment of a Republic in Australia. (b) Parliament protects the Rights and Honour of Orders of Chivalry formally reprimanding the abuse of Press Privilege by newspapers and Television-programmes and the Authors of the defamation campaign against Chivalry, Crime Reporter Bob Bottom and the Mike Willesee Show. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr MacKellar. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: This petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth: That it is proposed Australia Post's Post Office Agency on the corner of Green and London Streets, Joondanna, Western Australia will be closed down on 30 June 1985. Your petitioners therefore pray that this Agency be kept operating for the benefit of the many people who avail themselves of its services and who appreciate the convenience of its location. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. Manned lighthouses provide a safer service for mariners than automated lighthouses, as well as serving a wide cross-section of other community purposes including: meteorological observations, search and rescue, coast watch, environmental protection and control; 2. Swan Island Lighthouse serves the heavily trafficked and extremely dangerous Banks Strait; 3. Swan Island is listed for registration under the Commonwealth administered Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, will call upon the Government to ensure that Swan Island Lighthouse continues to be a manned station. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Smith. 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. 80-85% 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 doesn't 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 Andrew,Mr Downer and Mr Wilson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned ex-service persons in the electorate of Lyons in Tasmania respectfully showeth that: (i) The welfare of Australian veterans and their dependants should be kept out of bureaucratic costing exercises. (ii) The Veterans' Entitlement Bill 1985 does not represent the actual needs of ex-service persons, especially the abolition of dependants' pensions, the alteration to the assessment of rates of disability pensions and the alteration to section 47-the onus of proof. (iii) As ex-service persons who served their country in time of need, and now apparently forgotten by governments, we are deeply concerned that our organisations were not consulted before the amendments were made. Your petitioners therefore pray that: 1. The controversial parts of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1985 be repealed. 2. That ex-service organisations be given the chance of a ``Summit'' type meeting, as accorded management and trade unions, at which to express their opinions. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burr. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of the Division of Cowper respectfully showeth- That the introduction of any additional capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties would not be economically beneficial for Australia, as any introduction of such taxes would: First, adversely affect small and medium sized businesses in Australia, destroying incentive and discouraging investment in this important area of the economy; Secondly, disadvantage the Australian economy by stifling employment in particular, which is heavily reliant on growth in small and medium sized businesses; Thirdly, any capital gains that might result when owners of small and medium sized 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; and Finally, the owners of small and medium sized businesses often depend on a capital gain-which are simply deferred salaries-when they eventually sell their business to sustain them in retirement. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives oppose any attempt to introduce any additional capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties, which would be to the detriment of the economic well-being of the nation, and repeal any existing capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties, which are to the economic disadvantage of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Fisher 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 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 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. 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 Dr Watson. Petitions received. Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The irresponsible use of trade union power in the Mudginberri and other industrial disputes and the Government's failure to respond adequately to that abuse of power. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(2.58) —The first duty of the Prime Minister of Australia is to defend the laws of Australia, and three times today the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) had the opportunity of telling this Parliament, in clear and simple terms, that under his prime ministership nobody would be above the law. Three times he failed to do that. He treated us to history lessons, he ranted, he raved, he carried on and performed, but nowhere was he willing to answer that simple question. He cannot answer that simple question because Simon will not let him. The President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions declared today, in addressing the ACTU congress, that solidarity between the Australian Labor Party and the trade union movement had never been stronger than at present. This issue, and our complaint about the Government's handling of it, is not an exercise in wholesale trade union bashing or trade union confrontation, as the Prime Minister would have us believe. We are not out totally to confront the trade union movement but we are determined, on this side of the Parliament, to defend to the limit the right of individual Australians to make agreements that are in their own interests. That is the issue that is involved at Mudginberri, nothing else. What happened on that occasion was that some employers and their employees sat down and worked out that if they got rid of an archaic working practice, called the tally system, and replaced it with a far more sensible practice, namely the contract system, they would have some beneficial results. What did they get? They got higher wages-not the sweated workshops that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) so dishonestly talks about-higher productivity, the opportunity for export contracts and, on top of all that, the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission its very self putting its stamp on the agreement and saying it was okay. What happened then? Simon Crean cried: `That's not good enough. We cannot allow people to sit down and make their own agreements'. He even had the audacity to say that the idea that individual rights can prevail over the collective will of trade unions was a ridiculous proposition. Simon Crean said that that must be totally stopped. So what happened? The meat workers union said: `You cannot be allowed to get away with this. We cannot allow individuals to make a decision about their own future. If you let them do it in Mudginberri, they might start doing it all over Australia, and where would that leave the trade union movement?' Where would that leave the power brokers who are gathering in Sydney at present and have just elected Mr Crean their President for six years? It would substantially leave many of them out in the cold. Of course, what Mr Crean has said is that Mudginberri is a fundamental attack upon the trade union movement. Mr Hand —That is right. Mr HOWARD —I am glad that the President of the Victorian Branch of the Australian Labor Party interjects `That is right', because I am going to tell him and his colleagues what other people in Australia think. I shall remind him of what Mr Justice Lockhart of the Federal Court of Australia said. In giving his judgment yesterday, when he imposed a fine of $100,000, this is how Mr Justice Lockhart described- Government members interjecting- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne will resume his own seat, but I am not giving him a licence to interject if he does resume his seat; I ask him to be silent. Mr HOWARD —This is how Mr Justice Lockhart described it. He said that the meat employees union was on a `collision course with the law and institutions of Australia'. He was not talking there just about the Parliament; he was also talking about the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, which is the revered centrepiece of the centralised wage-fixation system that the Labor Party is so determined to uphold. He went on to say that the union had treated those institutions `with gross and criminal contempt'. Yet that was the conduct in defence of which the ACTU said yesterday it stood shoulder to shoulder, and it said: `We are in solidarity with the meat workers union'. The Prime Minister was once President of the ACTU. We all remember that. We all remember his contribution as President of the ACTU to the stultification of the Australian economy, and we all know his contribution to the rewriting of the industrial laws, which were laws of anarchy when he was President of the ACTU. But despite that, one would have thought that having now become Prime Minister of this country and having said that he wouild govern in the interests of all Australians, he would be prepared to say unequivocally to this Parliament, having been given three opportunities to do so today: `As a bare minimum, I, as Prime Minister of this country and as the chief custodian of its Government, will defend the laws of Australia'. But that was something that he was absolutely unwilling to do. Of course, the Prime Minister is unwilling to do that for one simple reason; that is, that despite the respected and exalted office that he holds, he is still the plaything and the puppet of the trade union movement in this country. Nothing demonstrates that better than the weaving, bobbing and squirming, like a cockroach impaled on a nail, in which he engaged today. Three times I invited him to make the simple statement: `I defend the laws of Australia. I will not allow any section of the Australian community to be above the law'. That is what is involved in the Mudginberri dispute. Nothing else is involved. Nothing else is as important as whether one section of the community will stand above the law. We are not engaged in an outright union bash. There are hundreds of thousands of trade unionists who, year in and year out, have voted for the Liberal Party and the National Party, and hundreds of thousands more of them will vote for us at the next election, because they know better than many in the community what jackbooted trade union leadership can really mean. They know that their comrades up in Mudginberri have made a deal that is in the interests of themselves and their families. How atrocious it is that when a group of people has decided that it is in their interests, on their assessment, to produce an arrangement that increases their wages- Mr Hawker —Doubles them. Mr HOWARD —Doubles their wages-increases productivity, provides export markets and is sanctioned by the centrepiece of the wage-fixation system, the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, the ACTU interferes. Despite all that, what does the ACTU say? It says that that is a fundamental assault upon the trade union movement. If the ACTU regards it as such, I can only conclude that the new President of the ACTU does not, despite his protestations to the contrary, really have the interests of the working people at heart, because there are hundreds of thousands of working men and women around Australia who would like to do a Mudginberri if they had the opportunity to do so. There are hundreds of thousands of other Australians who would love to see them do it. Who are the people who are standing between them and the realisation of that aspiration? Who are the people saying: `No, stop. That is too much. We cannot allow people to exercise individual freedom. We must think of the collective rights and privileges of the trade union movement'? It is Mr Crean and his colleagues. The sad thing is that the Prime Minister, a man who professes to govern for the ordinary man and woman, comes into the Parliament today and, on three occasions, declines to make a simple declaration: `I, Bob Hawke, as Prime Minister of Australia, will, as a minimum, defend the laws of this country'. It is an absolute condemnation of the Prime Minister that he can stand in the face of that kind of dereliction of duty and pretend that he continues to govern in the best interests of this country. Not only is his silence in the face of that invitation today a matter of supreme regret. It is also a matter of supreme regret that he continues as the head of the Government intent on a course of repealing section 45D of the Trade Practices Act. I asked my first question as Leader of the Opposition the other day of the Prime Minister. I asked whether he would abandon his commitment to repeal section 45D of the Trade Practices Act. His answer was no. Why was his answer no? It is for one very simple reason: That section 45D has worked, and has worked very efficiently. It is the one section that has stood between the sort of abuse of power of which we are so critical and the continued livelihood of many businesses, large and small, throughout Australia. That is why the ACTU want that section abolished, and that is why the Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations want it abolished. What was the pathetic response of the Prime Minister today when I asked him to make a simple declaration of support for the laws of this country? He said: `All I can say is that neither party has conducted itself with very much credit in this dispute'. Before he made that statement he should have boned up on what his colleague the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has had to say about this subject. When the Minister for Primary Industry, wearing his rural hat, was addressing the Rural Media Association of South Australia, he made a remarkable comment about the Mudginberri dispute. There are some immortal evocative words at the commencement of this statement. He said: Blind Freddy's dog knows the union is in the wrong on this matter. Government members interjecting- Mr HOWARD —No doubt the Minister for Primary Industry knows the strength of feeling throughout the rural community in Australia about this issue. Government members interjecting- Mr HOWARD —Oh, now the Minister is springing to life; he is barking like blind Freddy or a drover's dog. He knows that strength. Government members interjecting- Mr HOWARD —Oh, he has been misquoted. No doubt the Minister for Primary Industry will take the opportunity of correcting himself. But if for a moment he has the interests of rural Australia at heart, he knows how deeply the rural community feels about the activities involved at Mudginberri, and he knows how strongly rural Australia supports the principle that we on this side of the House are espousing in the industrial relations area; that is, the simple right of people to make decisions about their own destiny. It is a very simple proposition. It is not about trade union confrontation. It is not about war on the trade union movement. The people who talk confrontation and warfare are the people on the other side of this Parliament. We are for the rights of individual Australians, if they wish, to go outside the system-or do it within the system-to make deals between themselves that are in their mutual interests, and then, having made those deals, to look to the law to protect them against bullying and intimidation. That is a very simple proposition and it will appeal to millions of Australians wherever they may live. It is a proposition that this Prime Minister despises because it strikes at the very root of the power structure of which he was at the head for so many years. It strikes at the very root of power structure that he cannot cast off now that he occupies the exalted role of Prime Minister. I can only say that there are millions of Australians who are very disappointed in this Prime Minister. Despite his long association with the trade union movement of Australia they thought that he would be willing to govern in the interests of all. He should have been willing to stand with the courts of this country and to condemn those who would seek to break down, pull down and undermine the authority of the courts of this country. As the Prime Minister of Australia he should at least have made a very simple declaration: `I defend the laws of Australia'. That is the issue that is involved here. The Prime Minister stands condemned not only by the Opposition but also by the wider community for failing to support the laws of Australia and to defend the right of free choice of individual Australians to make decisions in their own interests. I put the Prime Minister on notice that he will be reminded of-no, haunted by-arguments with regard to these principles of civil liberties and rights of individual Australians to make bargains about their future in their interests and in the interests of their families from now until the next election. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(3.12) —We have just heard from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) an attack on the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) which is absolutely without justification in any respect. Of course, we understand the need for the Leader of the Opposition to be seen to be taking some initiative. As the new Leader, he wants to make his mark and he has made reckless declarations to try to get headlines, but that does not in any way justify his making statements about the Prime Minister which are utterly untrue. It is absolutely nonsense to say that this Government is not defending the law. Nothing which this Government has done in any way justifies that statement. Mr Cadman —What do you think about the Federal Court's decision? Mr Howard —Why didn't the Prime Minister answer the question? It is like youth unemployment, isn't it? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The House will come to order. I point out to the House that the Leader of the Opposition was heard in silence. The Minister will also be heard in silence. This is an emotive subject and if some honourable members cannot handle it I suggest that they might like to leave the chamber voluntarily. Mr WILLIS —It is absurd to say that the Government has not defended the law. It has defended the law and will continue to do so. The basis for the allegation of the Leader of the Opposition came from his assertion that the Prime Minister had not responded to a question at Question Time in the way in which the Leader of the Opposition felt he ought to respond. The simple fact of the matter is that the Government is in no way walking away from its responsibility. The essence of the question related to the payment of a fine by the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union. That fine will be paid whether the union likes it or not. That is the situation because a sequestration order is in place, which means that some $2m of union funds are effectively under the Federal Court's control. With the decision on this matter, handed down yesterday by the Federal Court, a subsequent sequestration order was issued which will take over when the other order runs out. Therefore, whether the union likes it or not, the Court is in a position to ensure that the fine is paid. The Government is not directly involved. It is not in any way preventing that fine from being paid and it does not intend to take any action to prevent it. So the basis of the allegation of the Leader of the Opposition that the Government was not defending the law-that was all he had to say in a quarter of an hour-is absolutely and totally untrue. As we are starting to note, the Leader of the Opposition is pretty good at making totally untrue statements. Having made that point, I have demolished most of what the Leader of the Opposition had to say. Nevertheless, there are some other things I wish to say on this matter. The Government has made it clear, from the time this matter was first raised in this Parliament and even before it arose, that we regard the union as being in the wrong in taking direct action against a decision of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. We have not at any stage said anything which indicates a contrary attitude. However, it is also true, as the Prime Minister explained fairly fully in Question Time, that the union has a right to apply for a variation of its award, and it has done so. That would have happened ages ago if it had not been for the section 45D applications which have completely distorted this whole dispute and raised it to a level which has made it a national issue, when it is a piddling little issue involving about 25 employees. I am not saying that it is not important for the people involved-of course, every industrial dispute is important to the people involved-but it is small in the national context. It has been made big by the use of section 45D. This section of the law which was brought in by the now Leader of the Opposition when he was a Minister-he thinks it is the greatest thing he ever did-has been described by him as having worked efficiently. We are told that in this case section 45D has operated efficiently to solve an industrial dispute. We had a 120-day picket which the section 45D action failed to stop until the expiration of those 120 days. Does that fit the description of the Leader of the Opposition of an efficient action? Is it efficient resolution of industrial disputation when it takes four months to get something to happen? I stress that even then something happened not because of the use of 45D, which was a roadblock of a massive kind to any resolution, but because the matter was finally brought back before the Arbitration Commission. It would have gone back before the Commission much earlier if it had not been for the use of 45D, which was totally distorting the whole issue. The Government is adamant about its position on this issue. As we have explained before, section 45D is a very adverse law for good industrial relations. It does not resolve industrial disputes. The Mudginberri dispute demonstrates perfectly that that is so. It demonstrates perfectly that with all the flurry of court actions, court decisions and Full Court decisions, the various appeals, the fines and the threatened damages the picket was not taken off until the matter was back in the hands of the Arbitration Commission. Hopefully, the Commission will be able to bring about a resolution of that matter. In our view, the dispute will be settled eventually in the Commission and not in the Federal Court, which is not concerned in any way with industrial rights and wrongs but simply with the application of the law irrespective of the industrial relations situation which applies. If the Leader of the Opposition were to read fully Justice Lockhart's decision, he would see that Justice Lockhart says: `It is not for me to say whether the law was a good law or a bad law; it is simply the law and I must uphold it'. That is what he had to do. That is undoubted. In our view, it is a bad law in the sense that it is quite inappropriate for resolving industrial relations problems. It exacerbates them and greatly increases the difficulty of their resolution. It is also important to note that the National Farmers Federation has played a role in this dispute which I regard as particularly insiduous. Its action exacerbated the problem and provoked it to a level which, I believe, it would not otherwise have reached. I regard that action as very serious because the Federation was not a direct party to this dispute. Yet, the spokesmen for the National Farmers Federation have taken a leading role in pursuing this matter. One must question their motives. Apparently, so I am informed, they have gone beyond that point to guarantee the legal costs and other expenses of Mr Pendarvis. Therefore they are obviously trying to bring some situation about. One must ask: What is the situation they are trying to bring about? Are they trying to bring about a change to the tally system, which they have said they have wanted to do for a long time? Most likely that is a major motivation. The tally system, which the Leader of the Opposition denigrates as some archaic system, has been fully accepted by the Meat and Allied Trades Federation of Australia-MATFA. It has not opposed it or sought to remove it, to my knowledge. When the Industries Assistance Commission surveyed the meat processing industry it said that that system had no damaging effects on productivity in the industry. It is not something which can be regarded as archaic, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, it is a system with which the parties have been happy to operate. In the Northern Territory some abattoirs worked without an award on a non-tally system, a contract system. The Commission, in making an award which was sought by the union, not by the employer, used first award principles, which put in place what currently existed. That having been done, a situation has arisen which has created a grave industrial relations problem. In that situation it is perfectly open to the union to seek a variation of that award, which is what it has now done. The Commission has listed that matter for hearing on 3 October and 4 October and we hope that the resolution of the matter will come from considerations by the Commission. The union is concerned about being left out of decision making on the form of payment which shall apply under the award as it presently operates. That is something which the Leader of the Opposition thinks is the greatest thing since sliced bread. He thinks that this is the precursor of a massive move to deregulation which will be the new nirvana of industrial relations in this country. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that if we were to see a massive move towards deregulation of this kind-if we needed any proof about it, Mudginberri is the proof-there is no doubt that it would be an industrial relations disaster of the first magnitude. If honourable members opposite were allowed to have their way we would have not only one little Mudginberri but presumably hundreds of them. A deregulated system as the Leader of the Opposition would like to have it-that is, as it has operated at Mudginberri-would mean that the unions would be left out. They would obviously be upset by that, but so too would be the employers. As I have told the House before, the employers in this country do not support this kind of approach. The National Farmers Federation is not speaking for the employers of Australia. The principal organisation of employers, the Confederation of Australian Industry, has made it absolutely clear that it is totally opposed to that form of deregulation of the labour market. Mr Noakes, the Director-General of the CAI, stated: Australian employers do not in our view wish to take a `leap in the dark' with some nebulous new form of industrial relations system. The consensus view amongst employers is that the system of conciliation and arbitration, as it has developed in Australia, is preferable to all of the other options that have so far been canvassed. This is not just the view of almost all employer organisations-it is the view of employers themselves. I believe that I can make the following statement without fear of contradiction-the vast majority of employers in Australia support the continuing role of industrial tribunals in mediating industrial disputes and determining wages and conditions. I have no doubt that any government that attempted to reduce to any significant extent the role of the tribunals would run into immense community opposition. I believe that is a very important statement from the leading employers' spokesman on industrial relations in this country. It is quite clear that the approach pursued by the Opposition has no support from the vast majority of employers in this country. In a situation where the vast majority of employers do not want it, where the trade unions do not want it, how is this going to improve industrial relations? What it is going to do is to bring about the prediction of the Leader of the Opposition that a government which he led would turn industrial relations in this country into a battleground. He used the word `battleground'. Indeed, that is what it would be-a battleground. We would be back to the levels of high industrial disputation and massive amounts of time lost. If members opposite were to bring that situation about the disputation would be much greater than during the Fraser Government's period of office. It has been a major achievement of this Government that we have had an extremely low level of industrial disputation. Working days lost have been at the lowest level since the late 1960s. It has been a tremendous achievement of this Government to bring that about. It has been brought about by pursuing a substantial consensus approach through the prices and incomes accord. This has virtually taken wage disputes out of the industrial arena in terms of industrial disputation and time lost. That has been a tremendous saving to the employers of this country. It has meant that we have had far more efficient operation of industry and we have greatly improved our national economic welfare. All of that would be lost if honourable members opposite pursued the course of deregulation in the way that the Leader of the Opposition would have this country do. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr N. A. BROWN(Menzies)(3.26) —It must be a very rare occasion when an opposition is in a position where it must thank the Government for its very convenient admissions made over a period of days on a wide-ranging number of matters concerning public policy. But this really is the position in which the present Opposition finds itself today, looking back over the last two days and including today, with some of the matters that the Government has put and some of the things that the Government and its spokesmen have said. I take this opportunity of thanking the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) and his leader, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), for at least three very clear admissions. Yesterday we had the first admission in an area which is no longer open to argument, because we had the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations saying on national television: `Yes, there is a very serious contribution made to youth unemployment by the level of youth wages'. That is a clear admission that youth wages are too high. When he was asked by the commentator on the program `What are you doing about it?' the answer was: `Nothing at this moment'. He is not doing anything at all about it at this moment. First of all, let us put on record our dying gratitude to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations for removing from the public forum one of the major arguments of employment and industrial relations because it is now no longer an issue; the Government has conceded that one of the obstacles to expanding youth employment is the absence of junior rates in adult awards. Secondly, what is the Government doing about it? Nothing. So, on point one, we thank the Government for that admission. On point two we thank the Prime Minister for being kind enough to read out the first two paragraphs of my Press release which I issued today on the unemployment figures released at 11.30 this morning. It must indeed be a very rare event for a Prime Minister to demean himself-I use the word advisedly-to lower himself, scurrying around for something to talk about, to seize an Opposition member's Press release and read it out in Question Time. How demeaning can a Prime Minister get when he behaves like that? But he read it out to the people of Australia and incorporated this simple fact in the Hansard: After the great claims that the Government made about reduced unemployment and the great claims that it made that its policies are expanding employment in this country, what do we find but that unemployment has gone up. It is true that the rate of unemployment has gone up only marginally, but it is clear from the statistics today-I must thank the Prime Minister for emphasising the point-that unemployment has now stabilised, it seems, at a high level. I would have thought that if there was anything which was clear at all in this country today it must be that this is the worst of all possible times for the Government to be forcing into the wage cost structure of this country substantial wage cost increases which no other country that we compete with has to bear. It has given away, quite oblivious to the public interest, the present national wage case claim for 3.8 per cent. It has given away, completely oblivious to the public interest, the next national wage case increase, which must be at least 2.5 per cent. It has given away by bargaining, without any regard to the public interest, 3 per cent of the 4 per cent claim for productivity. What do we have in return? We have nothing. We have in return a continuation of the same policies which have brought unemployment to its present level. Today's figures-this is the point the Prime Minister did not read out-indicate a lower increase in employment than we had last month. If that is the success of the Government's economic policies, I would like to see a failure of them. Let us come back to the main issue of this matter of public importance. It is very clear. Let us put aside the rhetoric, because it is a very simple issue. There has been a court case, brought by citizens of this country-a company-to the Federal Court of Australia. The proceedings have gone through. They have resulted in a decision and a judgment. The union involved thumbs its nose, as any person on occasion thumbs his nose, at a court decision. What is the response? The court says, quite rightly, that in any civilised society one cannot allow unions, companies or individuals to refuse to comply with court orders. If one allows that to happen, society will collapse. One cannot allow one's institutions to be treated with contempt. So in Question Time today we said to the Government: `You are the repositories of the public interest. You are the people who are responsible for enforcing the law. You are the personification of the Crown. It is in you, the Government, that the people put their trust. What are you going to do about enforcing the law? Are you going to stand behind the law? Are you going to stand behind the Court? What are you going to do?' The answer we received was the same answer that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations gave when he was asked the other day what he was doing to reduce youth wages and to get youth employment up. The answer was: Nothing. The Government stands condemned for the complete and unqualified abrogation of its responsibility to enforce the law. It stands condemned for its complete abrogation of its responsibility to stand behind the courts and judges of this country who enforce the laws passed by a democratically elected parliament. If there were any ground upon which a government could be censured, it must be that ground. No society can have confidence in a government that refuses to enforce the law. What is the Government's reply? Its reply is: `This was just an industrial dispute. It was a piddling industrial dispute'. That is the way the Government regards a situation involving an abattoir or any other business in the country which employs a mere 25 people. `It is a piddling dispute', says the Minister. He has absolute contempt for the people, the company and the export trade involved. To him it is a piddling dispute. Why is it a piddling dispute? It is a piddling dispute because it does not concern a big company-the companies with which the Government likes to deal. It does not concern a government. It does not concern a big union entering into some major agreement with a big company. It concerns 25 free, individual men of Australia. These men are individuals. Mr Porter —Ordinary Australians. Mr N. A. BROWN —They are ordinary Australians; but to the Minister they do not have rights. They do not have the right to go along and bargain and enter into an agreement with their employer. They are 25 individual human beings who, for the Minister and the Government, do not count. What have they done for the Government to say that they do not count? They have walked away from the almighty union and acted as free, individual human beings. They have exercised their own free rights. That is what this Government simply cannot stand. The Government stands condemned on this issue and on the whole range of other industrial disputes which have already been through the tribunals of this country. It is not as though the Mudginberri dispute were something drummed up in the outback. It has been through the courts of this land. It has been through the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The Government treats the court order with absolute contempt. No person in Australia can have any confidence that this Government will stand behind the courts in the orders that they make. That is utterly destructive of our civilisation. It is utterly destructive of our system of government. It is utterly destructive of any confidence the people may have had in any proposition that the Government might support the institutions on which this country functions. It is not only Mudginberri. Currently there is a transport workers strike in this capital city. That has also been through the Arbitration Commission. The great centralised system produces many cases that go through the Arbitration Commission and the State tribunals. Often the unions jack up on the decision. When it is put to the Government, as we have put the Transport Workers Union dispute, the Dollar Sweets Co. Pty. Ltd. dispute and the Mudginberri dispute, it says: `I am sorry. There is nothing we can do about it. Send it back to the Arbitration Commission because we cannot do anything about it.' There is a complete abrogation of responsibility. The worse thing of all probably is that the Government puts great faith in the Arbitration Commission, yet it treats even that body with contempt. It enters into an agreement with the almighty Australian Council of Trade Unions, goes along to the Arbitration Commission as it is doing in the present case and says: `Arbitration Commission, we have made a private agreement with the ACTU. Now you should rubber stamp it'. It treats the Arbitration Commission with the same contempt with which it treats the Federal Court. The Government stands condemned on this entire matter for its complete abrogation of responsibility. Mr PUNCH(Barton)(3.38) —This matter of public importance is not about Mudginberri or the two or three other industrial disputes that the Opposition has had to scour the Australian landscape to find, spending months of research. That is not what the matter of public importance is about today. What the Opposition and its shallow attempts are about is creating an issue, lock, stock and barrel, from start to finish, to produce a frenzy for a divide and rule, law and order campaign-an issue for the next election-to change the face of Australia, regardless of the cost. It is a battle of ideology. As the Australian Labor Party has long since conquered the battlefield of economic management, the Opposition has surrendered and resorted to its last ditch stand, a retreat to the foundations of the Liberal Party of Australia-the anti-wage and salary earner, anti-civil rights and anti-union party that it is. This new dry ideology is, if nothing else, very full of itself. One could say that it is not so dry on the inside. A cursory view of the front bench opposite a few moments ago showed that its members are full of Carlton Dry, on which they are obviously drunk out of their minds on industrial relations issues. The ideological cutting edge of this debate is the proven economic record versus the proven economic disaster. It is the proven new response to national problems against the old, class-based rhetoric and hatred. It is the proven national productivity and harmony versus the proposed industrial civil war that the Opposition would embark upon. It is an Australian ideology for Australians versus a foreign ideology the Opposition has imported. It is positive versus negative. That is Labor versus Liberal in 1985. Opposition members have spoken about abuses of union power. Where is this abuse of union power? Let us look at a few of the statistics and relate them to the 1981-83 period, when the current Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N. A. Brown) was the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. It might interest the honourable member to know that, as a proportion of gross domestic product, the wage share has dropped from 65.6 per cent to 61.7 per cent-the highest profit share in the Australian economy since the mid 1960s. Where is the abuse of union power? In 1981-82 and 1982-83 average weekly earnings rose collectively by 5.9 per cent. Under us they have fallen collectively by minus 1.4 per cent. Where is the abuse of union power? Under the former Minister the real labour cost index rose by 1.9 per cent in one year. Under this Government it fell by 5 per cent in one year, the lowest since the mid-1960s. Where is the abuse of union power? We will have created half a million jobs by the end of this term easily. In fact, in the last two months the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) created 47,000 jobs in this country. The best that the former Minister could do in two years was to create 16,000 jobs. Where is the abuse of union power? Where is the union domination of this Government? What about days lost? In 1982, under the former Minister, 2,158,000 days were lost. To April 1985, under this Government, 46,400 days were lost-the lowest in 17 years and 47 times less the previous Government's figure. There has been no breaking of rules or laws by the union movement in this country on a broad scale-none at all. The employers have confronted fringe unions with the contract labour issue, deliberately provoking a fight. The employers are not providing the price restraints of the accord at the fringes. The Queensland Government has changed the law, not the unions. Let us be very clear about all that. I think there is something more sinister about today's matter of public importance and this anti-union tirade that we have heard from the Opposition. We would all be aware of John Valder, the new President of the Liberal Party of Australia, and his role in the downfall of the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) from the Liberal Party leadership. We all know that he acts as a bagman for the Liberal Party, sending republican mail-outs and Tory-Thatcher-like mail-outs for fundraising. They appeal to the red necks in the community; the small businessmen on the fringe of the business community; the small minority unable to make their own way in a free enterprise system who blame the unions. I have as an example people such as Mr Pendarvis. It might interest the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to know that the Meat and Allied Trades Federation of Australia supports the tally system that he is confronting and that two abattoirs in the Northern Territory went broke using contract labour systems. I wonder how the honourable member squares that one away. My point is that this is an appeal to these red necks. It is a tie-up to the latest faction in the Liberal business circles-the insatiables, the people who will not be satisfied with the level of profits in the community until their sweat shops are back in order. In bringing up matters of public importance such as this one today there is a deliberate attempt by the Opposition to raise to a fever pitch a new wave of anti-union sentiment amongst those people in a dubious constituency for one good reason: To get some cash donations. I would like to table a letter which was written by the present Leader of the Opposition on 12 August inviting businessmen to become sustaining associates of the Opposition's campaign task force. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —The honourable member requires leave to table the letter. Is leave granted? Leave not granted. Mr PUNCH —I did not think that members of the Opposition would want me to table this letter because they know what is in it. This letter, which is written by the honourable member for Bennelong, goes on to talk about a victory that can result in a new era of prosperity free of the threat of union-dominated influence. It informs people that it is in their interest to fight back and to run a hard hitting campaign against the Government when it tries to do deals that are not in their interest. It states `We will be fighting to give you the right to negotiate', and so on. Clearly, it is an appeal based on dividing Australia between business and unions and one Australian against another. It is a letter designed to arouse all the old hatreds. It talks of fights and states that people's interests are sectional and beyond the power of a man who purports to be a humble suburban solicitor who will govern for everyone. The crunch is simplythis: It is an appeal for blood money to fund a campaign to divide Australia Thatcher-style. It ignores the economic repercussions that the accord has had for this country. It is nothing more than an act of a parliamentary mercenary to fight the battle of a few against the rest of Australians over industrial relations. Creating a slush fund it is the act of a Torquemada. I invite honourable members opposite to consider the repercussions of their proposal before this House today. Members of the Opposition propose a two-tier wage system-a wage system that would be without trial in this country or substantially anywhere else in the Western world that has a system comparable to ours. It flies in the face of the accord and it flies in the face of world movements in industrial relations. Earlier this year the Prime Minister of Canada invited our Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to open Canada's economic summit as a prelude to his talking to the Canadians about the accord and the benefits that have resulted so that Canada might emulate what we have done. This week we have seen a Norwegian delegation at the Australian Council of Trade Unions Conference to examine the very same thing. The shallowness of honourable members opposite indicates that they know we are right. I draw their attention to the parliamentary Hansard of 24 March 1982 where the present Deputy Leader of the Opposition said: What we look for is some support such as we have seen recently from the German trade union movement. He goes on to outline how the German trade union movement accepted a wage rise of less than the inflation rate. I say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that if he had any common sense, he would know that that is exactly what happened last week when the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, in co-operation with the Treasurer (Mr Keating), put together two years more of the accord to sustain high economic growth at a national level which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition sought and called for in March 1982 and could not get. Just how shallow can honourable members opposite get? They are seeking to implant upon this country a doctrine of another nation. They are attempting to implement Thatcherism in this country. We reject that. We on this side of the House are for Australianism-an Australian response to the Australian economy; that is, the accord. We call on those honourable members opposite to desist from this conduct. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The time for the debate has expired. The debate is concluded. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay) —On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth reports for 1985 of the Committee, relating to the construction of a submarine escape training facility, HMAS Stirling, Garden Island, West Australia; the laboratory development of CSIRO Floreat Park Laboratories, Perth; the construction of State Head Office building for Telecom Australia, Sydney, and the refurbishment of the Commonwealth Centre and associated major fitout works Melbourne, respectively. (Budget Debate) Debate resumed. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(3.48) —Before I continue my comments in this Budget debate I would like to make a reference to the matter of public importance which has just been conducted and concluded. I refer to the very gallant attack by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the fairly weak defence of the union position by both the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relation (Mr Willis) and the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch). Undoubtedly, some thousands of Australians will be listening to this afternoon's broadcast. I think it is appropriate that I read into my speech a letter that was forwarded by the Secretary of the Federated Furnishing Trades Society, which is the furnishing trade union, on 18 June 1985-a little under 3 months ago. This indicates the type of gangster warfare that employers are having to cope with in the work place. I will read this letter which appears on the union's own letterhead. It states: To all employers in the glass, carpet, curtain and blinds industry. It has come to the union's attention that numerous employers (which the union has a record of) in the glass, carpet, curtain and blinds industry have `pussy footed' around long enough in joining and signing employees into the A.U.S.T. scheme. I say by way of explanation, although many people here will probably know it, that that is a superannuation scheme that some of the unions are trying to impose upon industry. The next paragraph has a heading: `Don't say you haven't been warned!!!' It states: Employers have been warned continuously since Christmas time that they must join and sign employees into the scheme. The union has decided that `pussy footing' around by employers, whether big or small, will not be tolerated. To ensure the message is loud, clear, understandable and that the union means business, strike action has been agreed to. Members in the above industries will be called off the job for 24 hours with pay, and if this does not bring any results then members will stay out and bans imposed until every member is joined and signed into the scheme. I am not sure how much this would cost the employers, but these are the tactics, the gangsterism, the Stalinist approach being employed against people who are working their butts off in trying to provide jobs and to keep business going. The letter continues: Two weeks to achieve results: The union will allow employers two weeks to join and sign up their employees into the scheme which will be backdated from the 1st of March. The reason for such short notice is because employers have `pussy footed' around for too long and their luck is now at an end. In 2 weeks the next computer readout for who's joined the scheme and how many employees are active will be released and unless you are on it look out. The fight is on . . . The signature is a Greek name and it is from the secretary of the union. The point I am trying to make in reading that letter out is that this is the type of approach being adopted all over Australia by various unions because they know that the present Federal Government is prepared to shut its eyes completely to tactics which border on gangsterism. No union official would put his name to a letter like that unless he felt totally confident that nothing would be done to him. The tragedy is that if any of those employers had taken up this matter with the Human Rights Commission they would have been laughed out of the office. The Commission would not have been interested; it would have said that it was nothing. The stage has been reached where trade unions embark upon approaches-I used the word `Stalinist' before-which smack of the approach that Stalin would have used, that is, the gun at the head approach. They say: `If you do not comply you will fall down dead'. They do not mean that the people will physically fall down dead; I am not suggesting that that is what they are threatening. But they are saying that a business will be sent to the wall if it does not comply. I see the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations sitting at the table. I just wonder how much he genuinely worries about this approach or whether he just regards it as the order of the day. Mr Tuckey —To him they are only piddling little people. Mr DONALD CAMERON —Maybe to the Minister the businessmen who receive this kind of intimidation and threats are, to use the words of the shadow Minister, only piddling little people and dispensable. But, if the Government continues to ignore these tactics, we will see more and more Australian businesses go to the wall. There is little point in our sitting here each day and having to watch the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) postulate about how magnificently this country is performing when out in the market-place one has only to ask the small businessman and the not so small businessman to discover how things really are. I can assure the Minister at the table that, despite the cocked-up figures that are brought into this place, the picture is not as rosy as the Government would like to believe it is. I make that contribution to this Budget debate because I believe that the matter is worthy of mention in view of some of the pathetic defence that has been offered in this chamber this afternoon against a very spirited and well-aimed attack by the new Leader of the Opposition. I never thought I would see a Prime Minister of this nation on three occasions dodge being committed to upholding the law of this country. The courts have ruled that something should happen and the Prime Minister would not even say that he would enforce that. He tried to make out-perhaps in the spirit of consensus-that both sides were not really good and that they should go back to the courts for arbitration and conciliation. Yet in the Northern Territory a company that was trying to make good and to give employees an opportunity to do better than normal was sent to the wall and lost between $2m and $3m, and that is considered inconsequential. To return to the Budget, prior to the luncheon break I was referring to the fact that during the recess the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced that the Government would wipe out tax rebates for concessional expenditure. At the time of that statement he said that it would affect only 6 per cent of the Australian taxpaying force. But if we look at the figures we find that it really represents 360,000 Australian families because the people who are really entitled to that concessional expenditure are more likely to be families than single people in the work force. As I explained at the time, the Government moved in and has completed a job that was started by Gough Whitlam in 1974. I have been here long enough to recall the government of the day, the Whitlam Government, justifying the introduction of a ceiling for the rebate. What it said in those days, and I did not argue with it, was that, if people in the 60c in the dollar tax bracket claimed against their income education fees for their children, they would be reimbursed 60c in the dollar by the Commissioner of Taxation, whereas the battler who in those days might have been paying 30c in the dollar would have been reimbursed only 30c in the dollar for the same expenditure. So, a package deal was introduced whereby one had to reach an amount of about $500 in order to be entitled to a rebate of about 30c in the dollar. The Fraser Government-I do not applaud this point-did not remove that system or that principle. What it did was to continue to move along from that threshold for eligibility. But from the moment the Hawke Government came into office all it wanted to do was to pounce on people. It immediately upped the threshold level of about $1,000 to $1,500-I think that was done in the mini-Budget of May 1983-which excluded quite a number of people. It left it like that for a while and then took it to the final degree by completely wiping out the eligibility for a rebate for concessional expenditure. The Treasurer then made a speech saying that only 6 per cent of Australians were affected. But, as I have said, that 6 per cent probably represents in reality 360,000 families-not just 360,000 taxpayers or 6 per cent, but almost half a million of Australia's families. This is yet another attack on the family. The expenses which were eligible for a rebate included rates-this was agreed to and had been in place since 1915-children's education expenses since 1952 and expenses for self-education. The latter was introduced by the McMahon Government in 1972 to encourage people to better their education. If one attended a college or university at night and had to pay $500 in fees and books, one could claim that against one's income. It was used as an incentive. But that has disappeared, as have many other things including the cost of a funeral, burials and cremations and the legal costs involved in adopting a child. I mentioned these things only to highlight the insidious way in which the Hawke Government has moved in on people. In the days ahead there will be an announcement of a new tax structure. The Government will beat its chest and say: `How marvellous we are'. If we look back over the past years-not just the term of the present Government-we see that no person has been treated more cruelly than the Australian taxpayer. I am not blaming just the Federal Government. I believe that a lot of this sheets home to State governments and local authorities. It has been almost a race to spend. In the past 10 years government expenditures have increased almost fivefold, from $16 billion in 1975 to $77 billion this year. Government spending has increased by 70 per cent in real terms, dismissing inflation. That far outstrips growth in the economy, which was only 28 per cent in those 10 years. Governments at all levels think that there is no limit to what they can spend. If we turn back the hands of time 30 years, all governments in Australia spent less than $3 billion a year. We have gone from $3 billion to $77 billion in those 30 years. Ten years ago government outlays accounted for 31.6 per cent of the gross domestic product, whereas now they account for more than 42 per cent. Ten years ago the tax burden averaged $2,700 per head, based on the 1984-85 figures for the average income earner, whereas today the tax burden is $3,600. That is a massive increase in real terms. Those figures are not jiggled in any way. The taxpayer is being required to dig deeper and deeper into his pocket. The Taxation Summit which the Government held in this very chamber during the recess was in itself a disgraceful charade. Not once did the Labor Government talk about reducing expenditure; all it talked about was how to rearrange the tax packet. Instead of having its hand in just one pocket it was trying to work out how it could effectively put its hand into every pocket so that the people would not feel it so much. Thirty years ago the average worker was paying 19c in the dollar in tax. Today that figure is up to 47c. Little wonder that the Australian man and woman in the work force and those at home trying to make ends meet regard the Australian dollar as worth very little. The only problem for them is that they know the harder they work the less they get. I believe that the Government has not bitten the bullet of returning incentives to the work force, and until this is done Australia will continue along a very sad path. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(4.04) —Some 30 months ago the people of Australia elected a national government of reconciliation, reconstruction and recovery. The task of recovery, reconstruction and reconciliation was daunting. Honourable members will recall that it was a time of deep crisis. The Australian economy was devasted; jobless Australians had increased to the highest level in our nation's history; our standard of living had fallen; bankruptcies had reached their highest level in decades, and national production had dropped below the level of that of the great Depression. The Australian people are universally recognised as fair-minded and prepared to give a person a fair go. The Fraser Government asked the people for that opportunity in 1975 and they supported that Government again in 1977 and 1980. What was the return for that support? The Liberal- National Government said that everyone who wanted to work would get a job, but hundreds of thousands of Australians were thrown on the dole. The Liberal-National Government promised that it would be a low tax government and that tax indexation would keep governments honest, but tax indexation was scrapped. The burden on the ordinary taxpayer was never higher. The nation had placed its trust in the Liberal and National parties and this trust was betrayed. In the seven years of the Liberal-National Government there was division in our community which had not been seen since the First World War. The Liberal-National Government rose to power on division, profited on division and lived by division. It took seven years of Liberal-National Government rule to see a collapse in public morality. Tax evasion, avoidance and cheating became a way of life for countless thousands of our fellow citizens. They were the seven years when Australians gave up believing in a fair go for all; they were the years when mateship died. Just over 30 months ago, the time came for a cleansing in Australia-a cleansing of corruption and criminal activity. The Hawke Government brought reconciliation to Australia. It brought a renewal of caring, a renewal of prosperity and a renewal of hope. It is a Government that has healed the divisions in our society. It is a government that has fulfilled the promise of the lucky country. Australia now has the fastest growing economy in the world. Out of the ruins of the economic foolishness and stupidity of the Liberal-National Party Government, the Hawke Government has achieved economic growth and industrial peace. Inflation has been almost halved. Australia's place as one of the great trading nations of the world is being restored. Importantly, total employment growth since April 1983 has risen to over 410,000. Internationally Australia's performance on employment is now in the top rank. In the years to March 1985, Australia's employment growth of 3.3 per cent surpassed that of all major Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, including the United States' 2.9 per cent, Canada's 2.5 per cent, Japan's 1.5 per cent and the United Kingdom's 0.2 per cent. The curse of high unemployment is being banished from our midst. The third Keating Budget has extended the foundations for Australia's economic recovery. The Hawke Government has fulfilled its historic trilogy of budgetary commitments by significantly reducing the Commonwealth deficit. Firm non-inflationary monetary policy has been maintained. Wage fixing arrangements have been made so that the whole nation could benefit from the recent change in the value of the Australian dollar. The Budget includes no new or increased sales taxes or excises and no increases in income tax. The deficit has been cut sharply, from $9.6 billion under the Liberal-National Government to $4.9 billion in 1985-86. For the people of north Queensland, the third Keating Budget will continue the windfall of Hawke Government money for development. Above all, it is a continuation of the determination of the Hawke Government to increase dramatically the prosperity of north Queensland. No government, Federal or State, in the history of Australia has ever given more aid for the development of north Queensland than the Hawke Government. The mighty Burdekin Dam project received an additional $25m from the Hawke Government. This massive national project is the first major construction of its kind since the Snowy Mountains scheme. Generations of north Queenslanders had pursued the quest to build the Burdekin Dam, for upon this project rested the only hope for major development of the region. Since the Second World War, Liberal and National Party politicians had promised to build the Burdekin Dam. Each promise was broken: North Queensland was ignored. Liberal-National governments of the world's driest continent stubbornly refused to finance the Burdekin Dam project. Water resources joined a long list of broken programs and broken promises. They said water resources were a State obligation. It was the same old buck passing, the same old irresponsibility and the same old alibi which Liberal-National Party governments have used for generations to escape their proper responsibilities. It has been said that north Queens-landers need the patience of a saint and the persistence of Sisyphus when dealing with Liberal-National governments. The campaign to build the Burdekin Dam turned to the Australian Labor Party. Then the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) came to north Queensland and the construction of the Burdekin Dam became Australian Labor Party policy. In February 1983 the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) came to Townsville and said that his Government would build the Burdekin Dam. In November 1983 the Hawke Government approved a contract to build the Burdekin Dam. The people of north Queensland are relieved and thankful that the leader of the Liberal Party, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), is no longer Treasurer or in government. In 1983 he was quoted in the Age newspaper as saying: I wouldn't have regarded the Burdekin Dam as any more sacrosanct than other areas. I would have put it into hotch potch with some of the other things. He has never repudiated this statement. It is an anti-north Queensland statement; it is an anti-Burdekin statement. It is a statement which serves notice of what could befall the people of north Queensland should a Liberal-National Party government ever claw its way back to office. The dam is programmed to be fully operational and storing water during 1988. It will enable Townsville to lay the foundation as the economic and industrial giant of north Queensland and it will establish north Queensland as one of the most productive and prosperous regions of Australia. Townsville is home to the 3rd Brigade of the Australian Army and there is a Royal Australian Air Force base there at Garbutt. North Queenslanders are grateful to the Hawke Government for its unswerving commitment to a strong Australian Defence Force. This year's Budget allocation of $6,535m is a 10 per cent increase, in money terms, over last year's allocation. The 1985-86 defence outlay of $6,535m represents underlying real growth of about 3.1 per cent. Achieved real growth in 1983-84 and 1984-85, combined with the 1985-86 Budget allocation, gives an annual average real growth in defence spending of 3.3 per cent. This compares with the 2.5 per cent annual average over the seven years of the previous Liberal-National Government. The defence Budget provides for the continued improvement of living and working conditions, for operating costs and for investment in weapons, equipment and facilities. Significant ongoing projects in the Hawke defence Budget include $912m for the purchase of 75 FA18 aircraft and associated equipment; $41m for medium trucks; $35m for the acquisition of short and medium range air-to-air missiles for the FA18; $28m for the acquisition of Harpoons and standard missiles and MK48 torpedoes; $23m for various army communication projects, including new single channel radios, replacement cryptographic equipment and the Hirport/Medport trunk communications equipment; and $10m for the acquisition of 105mm field guns. Among the many projects approved for commencement in the Hawke Government's defence Budget are the acquisition of 2,500 one-tonne and 400 two-tonne light field vehicles to replace the Army's Land-Rovers and Land Cruisers. A further $61m is allocated this year for the acquisition and construction of new and replacement houses for Defence Force personnel and for improvements to existing housing stock. The 1985-86 Hawke defence Budget includes the provision of $162m as an allowance for the effects of possible wage and salary increase. Many members of the Defence Force were aghast at the miserly pay increase of 5.9 per cent announced on 2 September 1985 by the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal. Apart from the national wage increases under the national wage principles, this is the first pay increase for defence personnel since 1981. It has been calculated that the sum of $162m represents a 12.1 per cent increase in pay, although this sum includes provision for pay increases for civilians employed by the Defence Department. Defence personnel believed that they have been short changed, they are convinced that the fight for wage justice must continue. The Hawke Government is concerned to prevent the arms race in outer space. Of particular concern are the actions of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is now and has for a long time been involved in the militarisation of space. Since 1968 the Soviets have been developing an anti-satellite program, which would be directed against United States low earth orbiting satellites in time of war. That system has been tested 20 times, the most recent test being in June 1982. The Soviets had developed a new phased array radar system in central Siberia as the basis for a national anti-ballistic missile-ABM-radar system, when the ABM Treaty limited them to one such system near Moscow. They use satellites for the collection of intelligence and in support of their military-an estimated 70 to 75 per cent of all Soviet satellite launches are for military purposes. Their complementary electronic intelligence systems in space help them to track Western naval movements and they overfly Australia. Although it is believed the Soviets have not yet based them in space, their development of laser and particle beam weapons, which are suitable for anti-ballistic missile defence or anti-satellite systems, pre-dates United States work in these areas. There are many people in my electorate, along with millions of other Australians, who are strongly opposed to the militarisation of space by the Soviet Union. It should never become a zone of battle. The late President John F. Kennedy eloquently expressed the hope: . . . that we shall not see (space) governed by a hostile flag of conquest but by a banner of freedom and peace . . . not filled with weapons of mass destruction, but with instruments of knowledge and understanding . . . for the progress of all people. The Hawke Government Budget for 1985-86 provides for the start of works on the new $14.5m Townsville domestic air terminal. This much needed project will provide comfortable and efficient facilities for thousands of air travellers. International air traffic through Townsville is increasing. At present Qantas is the only international air carrier operating through Townsville. Since 1983 Qantas has had a submission before the Department of Aviation for restoration of domestic rights for the carriage of other international airline passengers within Australia. In 1979 the situation changed dramatically when the Liberal-National Government, without notice or consultation, restricted Qantas's rights to the carriage of its own traffic. Qantas's market of other airlines' stopover traffic disappeared overnight. Not only did this deny Qantas the opportunity to service fully Australia's in-bound tourism market, but also it left Qantas at a disadvantage in its home market against a number of foreign competitors. Qantas is in the extraordinary, unjustifiable and unprecedented situation of having less access to its home market than a foreign competitor. Approval of this application would greatly benefit the tourist industry. It would generate a 10 per cent in-bound holiday growth worth $150m to the Australian economy in the first year, due to the low through fares the airline could offer on its existing Australian routes. It would be of great benefit to north Queensland, through an increase of international air travellers on sectors such as Darwin to Townsville and Cairns to Brisbane. Australian domestic airlines could also benefit through an expected flow on to the many routes not serviced by Qantas, for example, Townsville to Alice Springs and Perth. The new $12m Townsville Commonwealth Centre has now been completed. Eighteen Commonwealth departments have now occupied the new building. The centre will provide about 8,300 square metres of office accommodation for around 600 public servants. The new building will be officially opened by the Prime Minister on 24 September. The 1988 South Pacific Festival of the Arts will be held in Townsville following acceptance by the Council of Pacific Arts of Australia's offer to host the festival. An initial allocation of $100,000 is made in this Budget to enable planning and other matters to proceed. The festival is expected to bring more than 2,000 participants from the Pacific nations to Townsville. The festival will be a significant national event which will have maximum impact on the Townsville region in terms of increased tourism and employment opportunities as well as on Australia's relationship with its Pacific neighbours. From its inception in October 1983 until the end of August this year, the Federal Government's first home owners scheme has enabled approval of over $5.7m in grants to first home buyers in the Herbert electorate. Nearly $4m has been paid out to home builders in my electorate for the construction of new homes. There is no doubt that the first home owners scheme is one of the most popular that the Hawke Labor Government has introduced. The Hawke Government's initiatives in dealing with the problems being faced by the sugar industry deserve the highest commendation. By contrast, the Queensland Government has abandoned the sugar industry, which is teetering on the brink of a major collapse. Such a collapse would have a devastating impact on all towns and shires along the east coast of Queensland. More than 200,000 people are estimated to be dependent directly or indirectly on the sugar industry. There is a crisis of confidence in the sugar areas of north Queensland. People are afraid, many with justifiable reasons, that the financial institutions, such as banks, insurance companies and other lenders-may well tighten the availability of loan money. Financial assistance is required from the Federal and State governments. Discussions are being held between the Federal and State Ministers. I call on both Governments urgently to provide aid to ensure not only the survival of the great Australian sugar industry, but its necessary reconstruction and its long term viability. In less than 30 months the Hawke Government has transformed Australia's social and economic environment from weakness to strength, from despair to hope. The Hawke Government has created a future for Australia of brightness and optimism in place of bleakness and despair. A new world is being won. There is new confidence in our destiny. Above all, Australian people stand at a turning point in history, facing the choice not merely between two national leaders or two major parties but between the public interest and private comfort, between national greatness and national decline. I want Australia to be a land of peace and good will, a land of hope and abundance, and I want Australia to lead the way to that new world. That is why I am a member of the Hawke Government. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(4.21) —Today in the Budget debate I want to examine the role of the prices and income accord as it affects Australia's economic future and to explain why the Opposition cannot accept the accord as the centrepiece of Australia's economic policy. Fundamentally we are opposed to the concept of Australia as a corporate state, where major interests such as organised labour, major business groupings and governments combine together to determine our economic future. It is our observation, not just a belief, that the combined influences of major established enterests have a depressing effect on entrepreneurship, innnovation and economic growth. Australia began as a corporate state, an event which we are arguing over celebrating in three years time, and has had a heavy overlay of corporatism in its national policies ever since. Fortunately the great rural and extractive industries on which our wealth was established-in those heady days when we shared with Argentina the distinction of having the world's highest per capita income-escaped massive government intervention until comparatively recently, but manufacturing and commerce have always been fairly closely controlled. The degree of intervention varied with the political colour of the Government, but not sufficiently to change the overall pattern. Mind you, if Labor governments had not managed to have themselves thrown out of office after comparatively short periods of office, the degree of regulation we now suffer would be much greater. We are fortunate indeed that Labor governments have occupied the treasury bench for only 22 years of our 85 years of Federation. I have argued for a long time that no Australian government has yet tackled the fundamental structural problems of the modern Australian economy, and until we face up to that task we are doomed to second rate economic status in the fastest growing economic region of the world. The present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made a number of speeches saying that his Government would require fundamental structural changes to be made yet at the very same time the Government was in the process of setting up machinery that had the effect of entrenching powerful vested interests at the expense of the more innovative and flexible forces in the community, and establishing organisations and procedures that were correctly described by the Australian Financial Review as heading Australia in the direction of the corporate state. The framework of Australian corporatism is embodied in the accord, the agreement signed by the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Council of Trade Unions in February 1983 after months of difficult negotiation. It was to be the centrepiece of the Government's economic policy and also the precondition of ACTU support for the Government. Since this document is the controlling mechanism for the present Government it is important for everyone to know what it contains. Under the accord, in return for ACTU support the ALP agreed to: First, a pricing authority to assess the validity or otherwise of price rises sought by corporations and public authorities within its jurisdiction; secondly, a centralised system of wage fixation; thirdly, various mechanisms to influence non-wage incomes, such as those of the self-employed and the professions; fourthly, restructuring of the income tax scale in favour of low and middle income earners; fifthly, an annual review of the tax scales applying some measure of indexation; sixthly, reduction of the relative incidence of indirect taxation; and, seventhly, improvements to the so-called social wage, in other words an extension of taxpayer supported welfare programs. Supporting policies were outlined in eight policy areas reflecting the normal ALP platform stance of reduced interference in the affairs of trade unions and massive interference in the affairs of everyone else. Just to give honourable members the flavour of the document, let me quote the following paragraph from the section headed `Industry Development Policy': `Fundamental to the interventionist policies required is a planning mechanism. This process will embrace consultative mechanisms of a widespread nature which will play a co-ordinated and ongoing role in assisting the success of the transition of the economy into a planned framework'. If honourable members think that sounds like an Eastern European country before the acknowledgement of a few market realities they would be correct. In fact it is a direct extract from the accord, the controlling document of Labor government policy. It is what Simon says. The next step in building the corporatist framework was the National Economic Summit Conference. As the accord was only a deal between the trade unions and the Labor Party, it was necessary to legitimise the accord in the public mind by seeming to gain the agreement of other interest groups. In practice, the Government would be content with the approval, or at least the absence of disapproval, by business, as all other interest groups were regarded as expendable in achieving the main objectives. In the event all the various organised groups were assembled in the House of Representatives chamber, and every conceivable element of theatre was employed to give the impression of Australians bent on an historic purpose. In reality, of course, what we saw assembled in Canberra were all the powerful interests and assorted interest groups of the last few decades, all intent on preserving their particular privileges, as was to be proven in the subsequent tax summit. Absent were all the unorganised groups in the community, including those whose individual creativity and entrepreneurial drive would provide the wealth and the culture of the next 50 years, if only the organised groups would let them do it. Therein lies the threat of corporatism in this country. It is real, not imagined, because in one manifestation alone, that is in the rigging of the labour market, the corporatist approach dooms Australia to second rate economic performance and a substantial loss of individual freedom. There are those economic commentators who believe that the accord is the best one can do with the Australian labour market. They accept the power of the trade union movement as a fixture in our society, like a governor on a steam-engine, allowing performance up to a certain level if it is in good condition, but capable of making things much worse if it is not kept in good repair. I can never accept that limitation, because even at its very best, the present system consigns us to mediocrity. For example, one outcome of the accord was that the effects of the price of labour on unemployment could not be raised seriously at the economic summit, yet labour market economists had finally emerged after years of self-imposed silence-with one or two honourable exceptions to that silence-to declare that, yes, price was a variable in the labour market, and indeed had a profound effect on the employment of the inexperienced and the less able. However to discuss that issue at the summit was `industrially unrealistic'. In other words the governor on the steam engine would not tolerate it. Thus at its very best the existing labour market system, the one sanctioned by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission under the baleful glare of the ACTU and supported by those elements of business either terrorised by powerful unions or relying on the principles of comparative wage justice to limit their competition, ensures a continuing high rate of youth unemployment. In addition it has these adverse effects on our society: First, it sets an overall level of wage costs unrelated to external reality. For example, at a time when our inflation rate is now double that of trading competitors, it indexes future wage costs to price increases. In effect it writes cheques on empty accounts. Secondly, within an overall wage cost level unrelated to economic reality, it further interferes with the management process in every single enterprise. Managers are required to follow rules which prevent them from achieving high productivity for the benefit of management and workers alike. Thirdly, it is grossly unfair to individuals. Where union control is strong, the better motivated, more talented or harder working employees are paid exactly the same as the less able or less industrious. Fourthly, it encourages management to abdicate its responsibility for dealing properly with employees on an individual basis. As wages and conditions are inextricably bound up with the achievement of the goals of the enterprise, the delegation of such functions to specialist departments or to tribunals with the involvement of third and fourth parties inevitably leads to disputation, suspicion, poor performance and work place unhappiness. Fifthly, of course, it makes the conduct of macro-economic policy impossible. Labour costs are a major variable in economic policy, yet under the present system they are insufficiently responsive either to government influence or market place reality. The corporatist plan embodied in the accord, far from finding fault with this enervating system, seeks to extend it. For example, under the accord the Government is obliged to extend centralised wage fixing into the professions, and to the self-employed. Wherever possible independent contractors are to be converted to the status of employees. Another part of Australia Incorporated, the Australian Taxation Office, is currently assisting in the achievement of this objective. Perhaps it is fortunate that the Mudginberri abattoir dispute has emerged to dramatise the issues I raise here. It is certainly not fortunate for the proprietor or the workers at the abattoir whose livelihood is in the balance. However, to borrow the Prime Minister's remarks at the opening of the economic summit, the Mudginberri dispute may well be `an event of genuine and seminal importance in the life and history of our country', for the very opposite reason that the Prime Minister hoped the summit would be such an event. Mudginberri could be the catalyst of other actions and reactions that bring the whole corporatist structure tumbling down. ACTU President Simon Crean certainly sees Mudginberri in this light and is mobilising ACTU resources to protect the existing structure. It is worth recalling what happened at Mudginberri in order to understand the issues involved. The owner and the employees of this remote Northern Territory abattoir agreed that their mutual interests would be served by using a system of payment by results, rather than a different system favoured by the union of which the employees were members. A Full Bench of the Arbitration Commission approved the agreement and it became the legal award for the abattoir, effective from May 1985. Despite having agreed in advance to accept and work to the award, the union imposed pickets on Mudginberri. The employees defied the pickets and were expelled from the union. Commonwealth Government meat inspectors have until recently refused to cross the picket line and approve meat for export, thus threatening substantial export contracts and the viability of the business. The owner of the abattoir took successful action against the union because of its illegal picket, and the union was fined $44,000 for failing to comply with the Federal Court direction to withdraw the picket. The union refused to pay the fine and the court froze its assets. It has only yesterday been fined another $100,000, which it has again refused to pay. The ACTU backed the illegal action of the union with national strikes on the ground that it did not agree with the law under which the owner's action was taken. Why Mudginberri is so important is that it illustrates what is wrong with Australia today. A perfectly simple agreement between employer and employees that improves productivity, boosts export and benefits employer, employees and Australia, does not meet the obscure and inexplicable requirements of the trade union movement as a whole. The machinery of government is mobilised to resolve the dispute-a euphemism for ensuring that the corporatist club wins at the expense of productivity, common sense and individual rights. In the words of Simon Crean, reported in the Australian of 5 August 1985: What you've got in this situation is the so-called rights of the individual to take action being confused with the collective rights of organisations which operate in this environment, in terms of meeting the combination of the individual demands. In other words, the system is more important than the individual, more important than productivity, more important than exports, more important than economic growth. The system has therefore outlived its usefulness. Let us resolve, Mr Deputy Speaker, to make the historic decision to remove its monopoly. Mr GEAR(Canning)(4.36) —After listening to the lecture by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), one can only conclude that that was a Carlton Light and that what we really need in this place is a full strength debate. Let there be no doubt that there is only one cloud over Australia's continued recovery, and that is the election of a Howard government. A comparison between the achievements of the previous Government and those of the Hawke Government shows that Labor is clearly a more competent manager. One can judge that assertion by looking at figures on employment. Since the Hawke Government has been in office, over 440,000 jobs have been created in 27 months, since the National Economic Summit Conference in April 1983-well in excess of the 340,000 jobs created in the entire 88 months of the previous Government. To put that another way, jobs are being created four times as fast as they were under the previous Government. In that Government's last year, 186,000 jobs were lost, and yet the honourable member for Mackellar tries to tell us how to run the economy. Honourable members opposite were abject failures in government. When they were booted out of office, and rightly so, this country was in a mess. The figures put us well ahead of the schedule of the promised 500,000 jobs in the first three years of this Government. I must admit that when we made those claims and I was a candidate for office, I did not believe that we could achieve them either, and in all of my campaign literature I did not make that promise. But it is a measure of this Government's success that not only will we achieve that but we will also exceed it. The other side of employment is unemployment. We have reached the landmark on the road to full employment of getting unemployment below the 600,000 figure-to the lowest figure for nearly three years and 100,000 less than when the Hawke Government came to office. The unemployment rate is down from 10.4 per cent when Labor came to office to the 8.3 per cent announced today. On present projections, we can expect a further 2 percentage points reduction in the unemployment rate by 1988. That is something that the former Government could never match. When that Government was kicked out of office, unemployment was spiralling. The discussion of labour costs is very important if we are to continue our economic success. Under the accord which was rubbished by the honourable member for Mackellar, real unit labour costs have fallen by 7 per cent to below the level of the late 1960s and early 1970s, and that was a time when we had full employment. The former coalition Government caused a wages explosion with its free market approach. Average earnings grew by 13 per cent in 1980-81, by 14 per cent in 1981-82, and by nearly 13 per cent in 1982-83. Under Labor, they grew by less than 5 per cent in 1983-84 and by six and a half per cent in 1984-85-that is, Labor has halved the rate of growth in average earnings. When the Treasurer (Mr Keating) referred to the Opposition as mugs and hill-billies and said that that was the way in which they were seen by the business community; he was spot on. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) mentioned today industrial disputation, and a major part of the comments of the honorable member for Mackellar was on that subject. Industrial disputation is at its lowest level for 16 years. In 1984-85 the number of working days lost showed a massive 65 per cent reduction on the 1981-82 level, when the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) caused a wages explosion and industrial chaos with his confrontationist labor market policies. He has not learnt a thing because he is espousing the same policies that he would implement if the people of Australia were mad enough to put the coalition back into office. In 1975, the Constitution was just about torn up by Mr Fraser when he came to power. He said that combating inflation was the prime goal and if that could be achieved everything else would fall into place. We can measure the success of the previous Government by its stated intention of reducing inflation, let us have a look at how things have gone since we came into office. Inflation fell from a rate of 11 1/2 per cent in the last year that the Leader of the Opposition was Treasurer to around 6 1/2 per cent in each of the first two years of the Labor Government. We just about halved the inflation rate and brought it very much closer to that of our major trading partners. By 1987-88, following the recent agreement on discounting for devaluation and with the effective renegotiation of the accord, we expect inflation to be in the 5 to 6 per cent range, a figure never ever approached by our predecessors. Another measure which can be used when comparing the two governments is that of economic growth. The Hawke Government's economic strategy has yielded economic growth approaching 5 per cent for two consecutive years, and that will continue this year. In the last year of the previous Government we actually had negative growth. Seven hundred people a week were put on the employment lists by the bunch of incompetents on the other side of the House. By the end of 1985-86 the economy will have expanded more in three years than it did in the entire seven years and four months under predecessors. The honourable member for Mackellar in his speech spoke about payment by results. If we were to adopt that principle and apply it to the previous Government, we would have to confiscate Nareen because, by all measures, whether we take economic growth, inflation or employment growth, Mr Fraser was an abject failure. His policies cost this country a great deal not only in social terms but also in monetary terms. If we really want to have a look at the two differing approaches taken by the Government and the Opposition and observe at first hand the application and the result of those policies, we have to do no more than compare Western Australia and Queensland. It is very illuminating to compare those two States, because they both have a similar economic base, mainly in minerals and agriculture, and in recent times tourism has picked up in both States. They have differing governments. In Western Australia we have the Burke Government, which, like this Government, believes that co-operating with the people-that is getting bosses and employees to work together-will achieve a much better result. In Queensland there is the confrontationist approach espoused by honourable members opposite. Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, for reasons which I will make obvious, has taken on the unions and it is Joh versus the unions. Queensland uses the old confrontationist policies that were a miserable failure. Mr McVeigh —We have got plenty of power. Mr GEAR —That is why the honourable member is in Opposition. It just goes to show that the Opposition has learnt nothing. The people of Australia should know that the lonely member on the Opposition benches was indicating that the Queensland approach was the proper one. Let us look at a few of the indicators and compare Western Australia with Queensland, under the two differing modes of government that I spoke about. Employment in the three months to April 1985 compared with the three months to April 1984 was negative in Queensland. It stood at minus 0.3 per cent. In Western Australia was an increase of 3 per cent, while Australia as a whole had an increase of 2.2 per cent. So we can see that in Queensland jobs were being lost and in Western Australia they were being created. In Queensland total unemployment in the three months to April 1985 compared with the three months to April 1984 went up by 7.8 per cent. In Western Australia it went down by 13.4 per cent. In Australia as a whole it went down by 7.4 per cent. Registration of new motor vehicles is always a good economic indicator. People buy cars when they can see that the economy is going well. In Queensland, registrations increased by 4.3 per cent. In Western Australia, they increased by 20.2 per cent. That is five times as many registrations. In Australia as a whole they increased by 15 per cent. The number of new dwellings approved is another key indicator of economic activity. Again, for the same period, in Queensland there was actually a decrease of 10.3 per cent. In Western Australia there was an increase of 7.2 per cent and for Australia as a whole there was an increase of 3.1 per cent. I turn now to the value of building approvals apart from housing. In Queensland the number of approvals increased by 6.4 per cent. In Western Australia it increased by 20 per cent-three times as much. For Australia as a whole, there was an increase of 15 per cent. Queensland did keep pace in the value of retail sales. It increased by 9.3 per cent in Queensland and by 9.2 per cent in Western Australia. Actual new fixed capital expenditure was reduced by 20.6 per cent in Queensland. That is negative growth, in fact. In Western Australia it increased by 14.4 per cent, while for Australia as a whole there was an increase of 2.3 per cent. For new fixed capital expenditure by private enterprise in the mining industry-this is very topical when comparing those two States-in Queensland, there was negative growth. It decreased by 47.7 per cent. Western Australia had a positive result of 28.9 per cent. So people who engage in those industries have very much more faith in the policies of the Burke Labor Government than in the confrontationist approach that they see in Queensland. There are few industrial disputes in Western Australia and if one were putting one's dollars up to earn more dollars that is the State where one would put them, and these figures indicate that. Just to bear out what I have said, I will refer to working days lost through industrial disputes. Taking the 12 months to February 1985 and comparing them with the 12 months to February 1984, in Queensland the number of days lost increased by 184.1 per cent. In Western Australia they decreased by 55.3 per cent. For Australia as a whole they decreased by 8.8 per cent. In the year to December 1984 compared with the year to December 1983 bankruptcies in Queensland increased by 26.4 per cent. How does the figure compare with Western Australia? In Western Australia bankruptcies were down by 24.9 per cent. When we look at bankruptcy figures there is just about a 50 per cent difference between the two states. Honourable members on the Opposition benches try to lecture us. They say that they know how to run an economy. The reason they are sitting on the other side of the House is that they were miserable failures when in government. We can demonstrate that, as I have just done, by comparing the policies of the Burke Labor Government, which is one of co-operation, a policy which we on this side of the House espouse, with the confrontationist approach espoused by the members of the Opposition and practised in Queensland. The results are graphic and they point to the fact that if this country is to continue its economic growth it would do very much better if we all work together than it will if we fight each other. The Budget was in the best traditions of the Australian Labor Party in that it targeted benefits to the most disadvantaged groups in society. Australians, by tradition, will always help those who are worse off than themselves. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) stated in a Press release: The increases in this year's Budget continue the process of redistribution through the social security system begun in 1983. ... ... ... In this Budget we have increased assistance for low income families, single parents and children in poverty-the people shown by repeated studies to be in greatest need. Referring to unemployment benefits, the Minister said. This Budget also continues the process of dismantling the in-built biases against the unemployed constructed by successive Liberal governments. Under the policies of the Hawke Labor Government unemployment benefits will rise for single adults without dependants, a group recognised by studies on poverty as being disadvantaged. In November 1982 the single pension was $77.25. From November 1985 it will be $97.90 a week. The gap between single pensions and the unemployment benefit for single adults without dependants has been closed from $12.85 when we came into power to $6.45 a week. We will decrease that further. Let me compare the way in which the Hawke Labor Government has targeted the social security payments at those people most in the need with the policy announced by the previous Leader of the Opposition. It distresses me that this policy was endorsed by the new Leader of the Opposition. I refer to the assets test. The Leader of the Opposition has said that he will repeal the assets test when his Party returns to government. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you well know, that will allow those 12 millionaires at least who filled out assets test forms to go straight back on the pension. It would restart the previous haemorrhage where by people of substantial means could get the pension by arranging their assets in such a way that they did not get an income. Honourable members can see that the Hawke Labor Government directs its social security dollars to those most in need. That contrasts with a government led by Mr Howard, who would allow the millionaires to go back on the pension. As I have said before, that can only result in one of two things: Firstly, in taxes going up-something I will touch on in a moment-or, secondly, in pensions going down. One cannot have it both ways. I think Mr Howard- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! I am reluctant to interrupt the honourable gentlemen, but he should be aware that when he refers to another honourable member he must refer to him or her by portfolio or by electorate. Mr GEAR —Thank you for your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition should tell this Parliament what he is going to do. Is he going to put up the taxes to give those millionaires back their pensions, or is he going to lower the pensions for the people who do need them? The Leader of the Opposition talks about smaller government and lower taxes. Because he was a Treasurer, we can look at his record. The Leader of the Opposition has said on a number of occasions that he is attracted to indirect taxes. It is something that he should know a lot about. Referring to the Budget Papers and having a look at the estimates for indirect taxes, that is the wholesale tax for the year 1980-81, we see that the total yield for that year was $2,102m. Because of the changes that the then Treasurer made to the indirect tax base, indirect taxes went up in two years by a massive 66 per cent. In 1982-83 there was an anticipated growth of $3,490m. Let us have a look at some of the goods that have been taxed. Manufactured pet foods-even for guide dogs-used to be exempt. The then Treasurer taxed them at 17 1/2 per cent. If that was not bad enough for the poor old dogs and cats around the place-one may have wanted to give them a wash to make them feel a little better-soaps for household pets, which used to be exempt, were taxed by the then Treasurer at 17 1/2 per cent. What did he have against the cats and dogs of this nation? Members opposite talk about wanting to get economic growth. Mr Deputy Speaker, as a member of the National Party you would be appalled if I told you that road vehicles and vehicle parts used for bulk handling of grain-something of great importance to the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh), who is sitting opposite, and to all the members of his Party-before the then Treasurer got to them used to be exempt from tax, but he slapped on a tax of 17 1/2 per cent. Road vehicles used in the mining industry, which is very important to my State and to Queensland, used to be exempt. They are taxed at 17 1/2 per cent. That is the sort of indirect tax increases that we saw under the former Treasurer who is now Leader of the Opposition. There are two ways of raising tax revenue-by indirect tax, which I have just mentioned, and by direct tax. There is an interrelation between the two. One would anticipate that if taxes were increased in the indirect tax field taxes would be lowered in the direct tax field, but that never happened. These taxes were an add-on; they were extra indirect taxes levied on the people of Australia. As I said, the former Government did not only get stuck into the Australian population; it got stuck into the cats and dogs of this nation. When pet lovers in Australia buy Pal and Chum and all the other great products for their cats and dogs they should always remember that the Leader of the Opposition has made them 17 1/2 per cent dearer. A measure of the Budget's acceptance is the number of calls received by honourable members opposite. If it is a good Budget, of course we would not get any calls. That was the case this year. This is the third Budget on which I have had the privilege to speak. I am very sure that the constructive way in which it was put together continues the process of the previous two Budgets. The Government has brought down the right Budget to foster economic growth to make sure that it stays in power for a very long time. I cannot finish my contribution without making reference to just one more incompetency of members of the Liberal Party. We all know they met last week. The Press got it right; the intention was to reaffirm that Mr Peacock was to be Leader and his Deputy was to be consigned to the back bench. They could not even do that. That is how incompetent they are. And they really want us to believe that they can run this country better than we can! The people of Australia recognise that this Budget continues the phenomenal record of economic competence shown by this Government and this Budget will ensure that it continues. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Mr COHEN(Robertson) —(Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment)-by leave-Earlier today I tabled the zoning plan for the far northern section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Members will recall the proclamation of the far northern section as part of the marine park on 31 August 1983. The zoning plan I have just tabled provides the basis for managing human use and enjoyment of the park so that activities do not conflict with each other, and the natural qualities of the reef are conserved. Members will also, no doubt, recall the declaration of other sections of the marine park which brought almost the whole of the Great Barrier Reef region, 98.5 per cent in fact, within the marine park during the first year of office of the present Government. Within the same period, the promulgation of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Prohibition of Drilling for Petroleum) Regulations extended protection to the whole Great Barrier Reef region from exploratory or commercial drilling for petroleum. Declaration of marine park sections is not an end in itself but is only the first stage in a process of zoning and management. The Government's initiative in declaring such a large area of marine park in such a short time has involved the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority in an accelerated program of zoning and management activities. These activities will become evident to honourable members in a series of zoning plans and regulations to be laid before the House between now and 1988. It is intended that zoning plans will be in operation for all sections of the marine park in our bicentennial year. I am sure that will please you, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I know you are a great admirer of the reef. Following declaration of sections of the marine park, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is required by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 to invite interested persons to make representations in connection with the development of zoning plans for these sections. The zoning plan for the far northern section has been developed following a process of scientific research, information gathering and public review. A draft zoning plan was prepared for this section following a three-month period for receipt of public representations. The draft zoning plan was then released for a further period of public review ending on 29 July 1984. The plans were subsequently revised, where appropriate, taking account of the representations received. One hundred and seventy seven representations were made in relation to the draft zoning plan, many of them by organisations representing large numbers of people. In summary, the main features of the zoning plan are as follows: The far northern section zoning plan provides for commercial, recreational and scientific use of the reef consistent with conservation, by creating seven zones; the general use `A' zone, comprises approximately 74 per cent the far northern section and provides for all reasonable activities; the general use `B' zone comprising 12 per cent of the section, provides opportunities for reasonable activities free from trawling and shipping; three marine national park zones comprising 13.6 per cent of the section provide for unrestricted public access for recreational activities with light tackle fishing, trolling and collecting allowed in two of these zones under certain conditions; and a scientific research zone, and a preservation zone provide areas protected in their natural state undisturbed by man except for approved scientific research. Within the zones, small areas of restricted activity are provided for, namely: Replenishment areas which can be closed from time to time to activities other than trolling or permitted research, to allow for the recovery of fish and any other resource stocks; Seasonal closure areas which can be closed on a seasonal basis to all activities, to protect from human intrusion areas of importance to the breeding of birds and turtles; Three areas that may need seasonal closure have been identified in the far northern section zoning plan; Reef appreciation areas when identified, will provide areas on and around heavily used reefs in which fishing and collecting will be prohibited so that the public can observe and appreciate relatively undisturbed marine life; and Reef research areas when identified will provide small areas on and around a reef, where permitted research may be conducted undisturbed. A new concept in zoning has been introduced in the far northern section with the provision of designated shipping areas. These areas allow shipping to pass through zones where otherwise it would not be permitted, without compromising the conservation value of the zone. Another innovation in this plan is the provision for the protection from fishing activity of a wide band of reefs and waters stretching from the coast to the outer barrier. This cross-shelf transect will allow the study of variation between communities in various reef environments free from the complicating factors of latitudinal variation or the impact of fishing. I also assure honourable members that the zoning plan also makes provision for extensive fishing grounds within the section and, by the protection of nursery grounds, for the continuing survival of the significant fishing industry of the area. The tabling of this zoning plan is but the first step in the establishment of management arrangements for the far northern section. Regulations to give effect to the plan are being developed. The plan will come into operation on a date to be specified by public notice. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is of the view that the opportunities for human use and enjoyment of the reef should be maximised consistent with conservation of the natural qualities of the system. In keeping with this view, this zoning plan has kept restrictions on activities to the minimum necessary to protect the reef. This principle is applied to all developmental and environmental issues in relation to the Great Barrier Reef and is consistent with the goal of the Authority to provide for the protection, wise use, appreciation and enjoyment of the Great Barrier Reef in perpetuity through the development and care of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. I take this opportunity to say how proud I am to be involved in this process, which is bringing to the country one of the greatest marine parks in the world. I pay tribute to the work of our predecessors from both sides of the House-the Whitlam Government and the subsequent Fraser governments-to the bipartisan approach we have had, to the co-operation of the Queensland Government and to the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) who is no longer my opposite number in this area, having been promoted to the shadow portfolio of Aboriginal affairs. This is one area where there has been unanimity and bipartisanship. There has been very little criticism by or controversy among members of either side of the House or among governments. The process is a prime example of co-operation between the States. I do not think there is a better example. The Queensland Government is not the easiest to get along with at times. However, certainly on the ministerial council the Premier, Mr McKechnie, the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) and I have managed to work together well on this project. I wish we could say that of all areas. I also pay tribute to honourable members such as the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler), the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay), the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) and others who have long taken an interest in this matter. When this final zoning plan is put together in the bicentennial year, it will be a great source of national pride. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —by leave-The Opposition with pleasure supports the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen), who has just completed his statement, proposing to increase the size of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park by including the far northern zone. It is worth noting that, four zones have been completed, namely, Capricornia, Cairns, Cormorant Pass and now the far northern. Two more are yet to be completed: The central zone and the Capricorn zone. As the Minister rightly said, hopefully they will be in place by the bicentennial in 1988. I also join the Minister in complementing officers of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, in particular, who have had such a substantial role to play in ensuring that the incredible amount of work which is required to put these zone plans in place has been completed on time. I also agree with the Minister's observation that this project has been an outstanding example of bipartisan support over the period in office of a number of governments. In June 1975 the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act was passed by this Parliament. It allowed for the declaration of a marine park within the Great Barrier Reef region and, at that stage, the allocation of 382,000 square kilometres. As the Minister noted, we are now parties to the creation of the greatest marine park the world has ever known. The responsibility which that vests in all Australian governments, both State and Federal, is not something that we can pass over lightly. One of the real problems we will face is that it is one thing to establish ideal zones of management, but entirely another to be able to police those zones. I trust that the Minister will, in due course, tell the House how he intends to allocate the necessary resources for the surveillance and protection of the vast expanse of reef covered by the zone and whether he can guarantee that the areas requiring special protection will receive the required level of support. Mr Cohen —Of course I can. Mr CONNOLLY —I am delighted to note that the Minister has given us his personal assurance that that is the case. I wish to refer briefly to some of the history of this substantial national achievement-the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Agreement was initially reached between the Fraser Government and the Queensland Government in June 1979. That followed from the earlier Act of June 1975 to which I have referred. The principles which underlay the agreement were endorsed by the Great Barrier Reef ministerial council which comprised then, as it does now, representatives of both governments. It provides for the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service to carry out the day to day management of the Marine Park, subject to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. The Commonwealth is required to fund 100 per cent of an initial capital works program required to establish management of the Marine Park on a sound basis with all other capital and recurrent costs of management of the Park being shared equally between the two governments. The Commonwealth and Queensland meet equal shares of the recurrent costs for management of Queensland national marine parks within the outer boundaries of the Marine Park. Queensland funds 100 per cent of the cost of capital works required in the management of the Queensland national marine parks within the Marine Park other than those capital works included in the initial program to which I referred. In addition, the Authority also administers the funds provided by the Commonwealth and Queensland for the purposes outlined in the Act. Expenditure programs are to be developed by Queensland in consultation with the Authority and approved by it for submission to the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments for consideration in their appropriate budgetary contexts. Again, I join the Minister in complementing the Queensland Government as well as all those involved in the Authority for the splendid work which they have performed in recent years to ensure that we are managing at an adequate standard one of the world's very great natural wonders. I also refer in particular, to the previous Chairman of the Authority, Mr Graeme Kelleher, who did so much work of an outstanding character to put in place not only the Authority but also the machinery which is so necessary to maintain the close relationship which has developed between the Commonwealth Government and the Queensland Government in this common enterprise. Over the time the project has been in place, Prime Ministers of both major parties and the Queensland Premier have confirmed their joint agreement that it is the policy of the respective governments to prohibit any drilling or mining of the reef which could damage it in any way. They agreed that the Authority should continue to have responsibility for the declaration of areas of marine parks, zoning plans and research and that, after the proclamation, the day to day management of sections of the Park would be undertaken by officers of the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service who, in the discharge of those duties, would be responsible to the Authority. It is worth noting that in October 1979 the Capricornia section of the Great Barrier Reef, which then comprised some 12,000 square kilometres, was declared and added to the Park. On 18 July 1980 the Great Barrier Reef region was entered into the Register of the National Estate maintained by the Australian Heritage Commission. On 14 September 1980 the Great Barrier Reef was nominated by the then Prime Minister, Mr Fraser and the Queensland Premier for inclusion on the World Heritage List. Therefore it remains a matter of great satisfaction to all members of this House and certainly to all parties that we can play a part in contributing to the success and the continued development of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Finally, I trust that, with the co-operation and support of the Papua New Guinea Government, before too long we will see the extension of the park, to the seaboard between the two countries which will increase the border of the park northward of its current zone area which we have included today. That will also play a major role in protecting the environment. Of course, the ultimate test is whether it will be possible-we believe it will because of the development of sustainable, useful and effective management plans-for the fishing industries off the north coast of Queensland as well as the tourist industry, both of which depend so much on the reef and its total ecosystem, to be able to live in harmony with the long term environmental protection of the area. (Budget Debate) Debate resumed. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(5.11) —I support the amendment so excellently and logically moved by the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock). This Government has sought to paint a picture of economic dynamism and increased competitiveness. It is time to cut through the empty rhetoric of the Government and all its blandishments. In an increasingly competitive world market Australia is faced with rising inflation, higher wages and higher interests rates. I suggest that those factors are hardly the conditions necessary for a sustainable recovery. To meet the challenges that now confront us we need to reverse years of government growth and interference. We need to unshackle the economy. We need to decentralise and deregulate and to give entrepreneruial talent its head by rewarding the risk-taker and allowing the market to make its judgment. All we get from the Hawke socialist Government are gimmicks. Both the National Economic Summit and the National Taxation Summit were gimmicks. They followed a similar formula: Exaggerate the ills of the country or its tax system and claim that they are of an unprecedented nature and that they require new or revolutionary devices to deal with them. There is no truth in either of these claims for the situation the Labor Government faces does not differ qualitatively from other situations confronted by previous governments. What is required is a government to make the tough and rational decisions which would put Australia on a more competitive footing; not gimmicks. In 1983 the economy was not collapsing; it was in the process of recovery due to the Fraser wages pause, the United States of America-led international recovery and the breaking of the drought. None of these things had anything whatsoever to do with Labor's summit or the accord. What has happened in the tax system is that the taxpayer is being squeezed mercilessly by the biggest spending, highest taxing government in Australian peacetime history. Yet the tax summit did not even examine the problem of government expenditure. It ended in abject failure and sleazy hotel room deals in which the government capitulated to the Australian Council of Trade Unions. For the sake of this country, the behind-the-scenes tradeoffs and deals between the Government and the ACTU cannot go on any longer. Temporary deferrals and postponements should not even be contemplated. Australia simply cannot afford the current wage and other employee benefits demanded by the trade unions. Labor's proposed tax reform has turned into a carnival of loot. Not one attempt has been made to address the problem and to cut government expenditure-to the contrary. We have had just more and different taxes-a capital gains tax, disguised death and gift duties and a whole range of measures to tighten the screws on those who work, those who produce and create jobs and, in particular, the primary producers. No matter where we look we see that there is a rigidity about Labor's economic policies which threatens to choke our export industries and the prospect of sustained growth. Labor says that it is reining back government expenditure to give private enterprise room to move, but the rhetoric is not supported by the substance. The three Hawke Budgets have contained huge increases in spending in real terms and the three largest deficits in Australian history. Private enterprise is being squeezed harder than ever. Real interest rates are at an historical high. The Government has captured a large part of the capital market, forcing the private sector to go overseas for its borrowings and exacerbating our balance of payments problems. Labor's failure to tackle seriously the rigidities of government spending flows into its approach to the general economy. Beneath the rhetoric, the reality of the accord mark 1 and mark 2 is full wage indexation and structural rigidity. There are deals done between powerful interest groups with privileged positions to protect. The accord even on its own terms, is not working, with substantial wage drift now evident and the increasing problems of reconciling it with a floating currency. The rigid, inflexible system of centralised wage fixing, under which we now work, will bring our economic recovery to its knees. The Australian Financial Review of 21 August stated that this Budget was `by the accord, out of the accord and for the accord'. I would not buy clydesdales with that type of breeding. This Government's refusal to address the fundamentals of international competitiveness is clearly shown by this Budget-a Budget which offers no solutions to the problem facing our exporters. It is a Budget which offers only new taxes. It forecasts a level of inflation of 8 per cent which will be more than double the rate for our major trading partners and which will mean reducing Australia's international competitiveness even futher. What solution does this Budget offer? The Department of the Treasury has estimated, in table 21 of Budget Statement No. 2, that Australia's external debt has risen from $24.2 billion at the end of 1983, or 14.6 per cent of gross domestic product, to over $52 billion at the end of June this year, or 25 per cent of GDP. Treasury forecasts that the overseas current account deficit will be even greater than the $10 billion in 1985-86 and that the Australian dollar will not improve over the year. What does the Budget do for this? What level is the foreign debt likely to reach at the end of 1985-86? How long will it be before Australia bankrupts itself internationally? When can we expect a change from this cargo cult mentality in economic management? The Budget identifies that interest on the public debt will be the third largest and fastest growing item of Federal Budget outlays this financial year. It will be some 19 per cent-more than double the growth of total outlays of some 8 per cent. Unfortunately, most people are unaware that Budget outlays for payment of interest on the public debt exceed spending on health, education and even defence. Most people are also unaware that this Government is not directing these borrowed funds into productive endeavour. As a consequence, the debt servicing burden is becoming punitive and our reliance on international savings more evident. In my opinion-and I say this with sincerity and with honesty-the worst form of child abuse is deficit funding. If this Government really cared about Australia's children, it would show more concern about the debt it is running up on the children's bill. This Budget rests on very high expectations of economic growth. To achieve those expectations, our economy must grow faster than that of any country in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and we know that that just will not happen. Where do we stand in relation to other OECD countries? We are certainly not on a secure footing. Let us compare the facts. Firstly, Australia has the highest real rate of interest; I am not proud of that. Secondly, Australia has the second worst current account deficit of all the major OECD countries-even worse than that of the United States of America-as a proportion of gross domestic product; I am not proud of that. Thirdly, Australia in the last year has had by far the worst currency devaluation; I am not proud of that. Fourthly, even with wage discounting, Australia's inflation rate in 1986 will be at least twice the forecast 3.5 per cent average in the major OECD trading countries; as an Australian, I am not proud of that. Australia's rising inflation rate will hold interest rates at a dangerously high level. This means that people buying their own homes are paying the highest real interest rates for 50 years. They are the highest real rates of interest since the Great Depression. Why do the Hawke socialists hate people buying their own homes? This record interest burden, along with a deterioration in the farm terms of trade and a cost-price squeeze, has been devastating to the farming community. Clearly, Australia's ongoing growth will be contingent upon a sustained expansion of our exports into the world market-place. This objective can be achieved only if we combine the competitive benefits of our depreciated currency with wage moderation and with industrial harmony. With the first requirement of wage moderation, we know where this Hawke Government stands. It has proven that it does not have the political will to take decisions which are crucial to achieve wage moderation. With the second requirement of industrial harmony, this is no time for complacency. Let us get to the facts. Let us strip the rhetoric from them. The simple fact is that our major export earner is the coal industry. In fact we are the world's leading coal exporter. However, for the 12 month period ended April 1985, working days lost per 1,000 employees in the coal industry were 6,868, which is in excess of twice the number of days lost in the 12 months ended April 1984. The wheat industry, our second most important export, has also been adversely affected by industrial disputes, that is, industrial disputes at the loading sites have lost Australia some $270m in wheat export revenue during the last 12 months. In other words, how can this Hawke socialist Government gloat about the successes of its prices and incomes accord when our two most important export industries have been hit hard by industrial disputes in the last 12 months? It is wrong to cite statistics of days. What is important is how much money each day costs. When the Hawke Government does its sums, it will find that there has been an enormous attack on the economy of Australia because the strikes have taken place in the important export industries, which industries are in effect the reason for our quality of life improving. Successful international economic co-operation requires a degree of dynamism in Australia's labour market which will not be feasible under the proposals of the recent report of the Hancock Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems. Indeed, the whole area of government regulation and control of economic activity is critically important in maximising the benefits of international economic co-operation. This means not only providing freedom of access to markets to ensure a healthy degree of international competition. It also means that domestic regulation should impose the minimum necessary burden of compliance on industry. But, above all, it means putting Australia's economic house in order. This will not be done through weak summits and Budgets, or through closed door deals with powerful interest groups in a masquerade of consensus. It will be done through the necessary and sometimes hard decisions which the people's elected representatives have to make in looking after the prosperity of all Australians. How are we to breed future Australians who will be prepared to make the tough decisions? I do not want an Australia composed of high flyers and in which people are prepared to gloat when the victories are the order of the day. I want an Australia populated by men and women with intestinal fortitude who, when faced with the disappointments of life, are prepared to take them on the chin and accept them. The Australia I want to see is one in which children come up through a great system, a system of which I was proud to be part and which for better or for worse-I hope it was for better-may have moulded me. I refer to the cadet system in our secondary schools in Australia. As a father of a young cadet, I am upset to know that these socialists have ripped the guts out of the Australian cadet system. In 1978 there were 30,000 young men and women in Australia imbued with a pride in their country and a sense of idealism who wanted first of all to learn to obey so that later they could command. But the Hawke socialists saw fit not to develop an Australia with leaders in our community; they want an Australia composed only of followers. I deplore this attitude and I am upset that, in the recent Budget, I have not been able to find, despite the best efforts of the Parliamentary Library, despite waiting on the doorstep of the Department of Defence, a line which indicates the type of assistance that will go to the Australian cadet system. I find allocated only a sum of $730,000 for salaries. Friends know that I am fair dinkum about the cadet system and when I checked with them they told me: `Tom, we can spend only a maximum of $230,000 of that sum'. I say to the Hawke socialists opposite: `Give that extra half a million dollars to the kids, the sons and daughters of Australians, so that they can go out into the bush and learn a bit about self-reliance and living with the community.' Unless we do this, unless we fill them up with some strength and pride in our country, we will all rapidly deteriorate and crumble and crisp away as the socialist economies of the past did. In July 1984 there were 18,673 cadets in 155 units-8 open units and 147 at schools-at a cost of $11m. One year later under the new system there were 17,015 cadets; a reduction of 1,500. There were 2,963 fully funded cadets at 26 schools, including nine deprived schools, and 14,052 other cadets at 108 schools with the miserly help from the Government. A bum and a dropout will receive funding but the Government will give decent kids only $1.7m. Let us transfer some of those useless social security funds to improve the cadet system in Australia. I pay tribute to the independent schools in my electorate. I pay tribute, firstly, to the Toowoomba Grammar School, which on a proportionate basis has produced more generals and distinguished soldiers than any other school in Australia and secondly, to Downlands College, which is conducted by the Sacred Heart fathers and brothers. Two of my own children proudly claim Downlands College as their alma mater. I did not attend that school; I attended a rival school. But I am proud to say that Downlands College, like the Toowoomba Grammar School, through the efforts of its parents and citizens, has seen fit to continue to fund the cadet system. I pay tribute to the enthusiasm of the Reverend Father J. J. Littleton, Headmaster of Downlands College, who has made an enormous personal sacrifice for his school. I pay tribute also to Bill Berwick and Les Johnson, Downlands College teachers, who have given generously of their time because they are fully aware. They share my concern. How I admire them. They want leaders, not humble little lambs who will take what is dished out to them. The cadet system is a great system; let it continue. Mr LEE(Dobell)(5.32) —I rise to support the Hawke Labor Government's third Budget. Three weeks ago the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), as Leader of the Opposition, delivered the Liberal Party's reply to this Budget. The honourable member's assault on this Government's economic blueprint for the coming financial year was so devastating that the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) has now gained the leadership of the Liberal Party. The honourable member for Bennelong is the Opposition's nominee for the most important job in this country. Judged by any reasonable standards of behaviour the honourable member for Bennelong is unfit to lead honourable members opposite, let alone lead our country. The honourable member for Bennelong is unfit to be the leader of the Opposition because during his five years service as Malcolm Fraser's Treasurer and his two years service as Malcolm Fraser's loyal deputy leader he misled this House, the Premiers and the Australian people. In his five years as Treasurer he broke solemn promises, went back on guarantees and cooked the books whenever necessary. Following his victory in last week's leadership battle I was sickened to read in some newspapers that the new Leader of the Opposition has been christened Honest John. Unfortunately, Honest John made quite a few honest mistakes during his stewardship as our country's Treasurer. Today I wish to deal with only nine of those honest mistakes. The Leader of the Opposition's attacks on this Budget are hypocritical in the extreme because he had in his hands the control of our economy during the greatest economic recession since the Great Depression. I wish to share with the House my memories of economic policy when the current Leader of the Opposition was Treasurer. During 1977 the Liberal Party, with the honourable member for Bennelong as its Acting Treasurer, ran a disgraceful election campaign. I am sure that every honourable member remembers the outrageous fistful of dollars advertisement. On one side of the television screen was a fistful of dollars, with the message `Liberals give'. On the other side of the television screen was an empty hand, with the message `Labor takes'. The advertisement appealed to the Liberal Party's greatest backstop, a backstop used by the Liberals in every election campaign. That backstop is greed. The advertisement referred to an income tax cut announced in the 1977 Budget and a promise by the honourable member for Bennelong to implement full tax indexation of all income tax brackets. This tax cut and the tax indexation promise were the centrepiece of the Liberal Party's platform in the 1977 election campaign. The Liberals were re-elected and the now late Sir Phillip Lynch was shunted aside so that the honourable member for Bennelong could become Malcolm Frasers's permanent Treasurer. Any decent Treasurer, having secured re-election using the fistful of dollars tax cuts, surely should have felt honour bound to implement the Liberal's tax policies. However, in the first Budget after the election-the 1978 Budget-the honourable member for Bennelong increased income tax and in one hit wiped out the election cam- paign tax cuts. I quote from a newspaper report of the honourable member for Bennelong's first Budget speech: . . . the Government has decided that as a temporary measure for 1978-79 only, the standard rate of personal income tax will be increased by 1.5 per cent. ... ... ... The increase is effective from July 1, and therefore the extra deduction to be made from a taxpayer's wages or salary after November 1 will be designed to meet his or her additional tax liability for the whole of 1978-79 . . . In one hit the then Treasurer's two tax promises were broken. First, the income tax cuts granted in 1977 before the election were taken back. Second, full tax indexation was not granted in 1978 as had been promised on the campaign trail. Those of us who have heard the Leader of the Opposition speak in this chamber against our Government's proposals to pass retrospective legislation to catch the tax rorters should never forget that on 15 August 1978 this Leader of the Opposition's first Budget contained a retrospective increase in income tax. I want to spell that out very clearly for honourable members opposite. The 1978 Budget documents claimed that a temporary 1.5 per cent income tax surcharge would be levied. The tax increase was made retrospective to 1 July, so each pay as you earn taxpayer was slugged 2.57 per cent from Budget night 1978 until the end of that financial year. When the Hawke Government sought to use retrospective legislation to recoup taxes which had been criminally evaded, the current Leader of the Opposition developed sweaty palms and could not vote for retrospective taxes on principle. He completely forgot that his first Budget in 1978 had hit every PAYE taxpayer with a retrospective tax slug. As I have explained to the House, the current Leader of the Opposition's 1978 Budget remains infamous for three reasons: First, the fistful of dollars tax cuts were taken away; secondly, the full tax indexation promise was broken; and, third, the temporary income tax surcharge was applied retrospectively. Of course, the honourable member for Bennelong did not deliberately set out to mislead his fellow Australians; he did not deliberately set out to break promises given less than 10 months previously. Honest John simply made an honest mistake or, to be more precise, three honest mistakes. The next most disgraceful episode occurred in May 1979. The tax surcharge announced by the Leader of the Opposition in the 1978 Budget was meant to be temporary. This was clearly expressed in an official Press release by the then Treasurer, which stated: Mr Howard said he wished to make it clear that the 1 1/2 per cent increase was simply a temporary increase in the standard rate. Honourable members should look at the headline of an article in the Sydney Morning Herald-`Temporary personal tax rise of 1.5 pc'. The then Treasurer had promised in his 1978 Budget Speech that the legislation would ensure that the temporary surcharge would be terminated on 30 June 1979. However, on 24 May 1979 he terminated his promise to terminate the tax surcharge. The Melbourne Age reported the then Treasurer's May 1979 mini-Budget in an article headed `Surcharge to stay and index halted' in the following words: The Federal Treasurer, Mr Howard, last night brought down a savage preliminary Budget which continues the income tax surcharge, suspends tax indexation and cuts health benefits. The income tax surcharge will continue to be collected at the present rate of 2.57 per cent until at least November 30. Tax indexation has been suspended until the August Budget when the Government will decide its future. I would not suggest that the current Leader of the Opposition always intended to retain the tax surcharge when he announced earlier that it was only a temporary measure; Honest John simply made his fourth honest mistake. The current Leader of the Opposition's next memorable performance was in his 1979 Budget Speech. The Sun-News Pictorial described his Budget in these terms: The Treasurer, Mr Howard, flatly refused to restore tax indexation for the financial year . . . . . .`Whether or not tax indexation can be restored in 1980-81 will depend on economic conditions', he said. `Let there be no mistake . . . the Government wants to restore tax indexation, but economic circumstances are not right.' As acting Treasurer in the 1977 election, the honourable member for Bennelong had promised full tax indexation. In the 1978 Budget only 50 per cent tax indexation was implemented. In the 1979 Budget Treasurer Howard announced the complete abolition of any tax indexation. The current Opposition Leader would not, of course, have set out on a predetermined and calculated strategy to undermine and abolish tax indexation; honest John simply made his fifth honest mistake. In May 1981, after the Premiers Conference of that year had concluded, Mr Howard gave background briefings to three journalists in order to ensure that media reports emphasised the Commonwealth Government's tough stand during the negotiations with the Premiers. Treasurer Howard leaked information to these three journalists indicating that the Cabinet had authorised him to give the States $70m more than they were finally forced to accept. The then Premier of Western Australia, Sir Charles Court, was less than amused. He demanded that the Federal Government hand over the additional funds along with Mr Howard's resignation as Treasurer. Paul Kelly, writing at that time for the Sydney Morning Herald, records the events which followed in the following article: The real problem is that Mr Fraser and Mr Howard have paraded the deviousness of the Government. By admitting their own guilt in backgrounding or `leaking' to the press that they had given the Premiers one per cent less than the `ceiling' approved by Cabinet, the two ministers . . . exposed themselves as guilty to exactly the type of accusation and behaviour that Mr Peacock complained about. A series of snapshots of last Wednesday tells the story: the PM's press secretary, David Barnett, shouting in the ABC office; Mr Fraser refusing to answer questions from the electronic media; Mr Howard ringing the ABC's PM radio program suggesting he retape his interview; the Treasurer admitting to a stunned evening press conference that he and Mr Fraser were guilty of `an error of judgment'; and finally, the Prime Minister himself summoning the press to his office in an effort to defuse the damage. This was honest John's sixth honest mistake. In January 1983 Treasurer Howard praised the latest Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development survey of the Australian economy as `most encouraging' and he claimed it was confirmation of many things the Liberal Government had been saying about the Australian economy. In late February 1983 a memo to Treasurer Howard from Treasury Deputy Secretary, Dick Rye, revealed why the OECD survey had been so agreeable. The memo stated: . . . the meeting went very well indeed. We achieved all our main objectives, that is: to have removed from the `conclusions' of the survey suggestions that there would be merit in a return to a centralised system of wage fixation or that, in the context of such a system, `dialogue, compromise and moderation' would provide the answer to Australia's immediate economic problems. The honourable member for Bennelong, being opposed to dialogue, compromise and moderation in industrial matters, would have been very pleased to have these recommendations deleted from the OECD report. I am sure that the current Leader of the Opposition was not seeking to mislead the community or to cook the books; honest John simply made his seventh honest mistake. The current Opposition Leader's most famous honest mistake was his decision in early 1983 to withhold during the 1983 election campaign Treasury advice that the Budget deficit for the 1984 Budget was expected to reach $9.6 billion. On a recent ABC program, Mr Richard Carleton referred to this as `a phoney deficit figure'. Let me remind Mr Carleton and honourable members present of the sequence of events. I quote from the Melbourne Age. The headline is: `Howard knew deficit figure months ago'. The article states: The former Treasurer, Mr Howard, yesterday admitted that he knew the deficit for next financial year would start at around $8,000 million long before he mentioned the figure of $6,000 million during the election campaign. It is believed that Mr Howard received an informal note from Treasury before Mr Fraser called the election. The note said that the 1983-84 deficit would begin at around double the $4,000 million forecast. Yet Mr Howard during the election campaign used the $6,000 million figure. At a Press conference in Sydney on 21 February, Mr Howard said he believed the deficit would be higher than the $4,000 million for this financial year. `Some estimates have put it as high as $6,000 million' he said. Later at the same Press conference he said the next deficit would obviously be higher than this year. `I don't think I can be any more precise than that because I don't have any more detailed information available to me'. Mr Howard admitted last week, however, that the three most senior Treasury officials told him at the start of the last week of the campaign that the latest figures on the deficit suggested a starting point of around $9,000 million. The article concludes: Mr Howard finally learned on Friday, the eve of the election, that a more detailed forecast of the next deficit by the Treasury and the Department of Finance had come up with $9,600 million. It should always be remembered that the honourable member for Bennelong has conceded that he was formally advised in a Treasury memo before Mr Fraser even called the election that the deficit would be around $8 billion. After receiving this advice he claimed in one Press conference that the estimate was only $6 billion and that he had no detailed information from his Department. The current Opposition Leader was unable to come clean during the 1983 election campaign and confess that under his administration the deficit had blown out to $9.6 billion. Why was he unable to come clean with the community? Apologists for the Opposition Leader would have us believe that Mr Fraser prevented him from being honest with us. If we accept this excuse the question which then arises is this: If Mr Fraser could induce the current Opposition Leader to cover up the deficit blow out, does the honourable member for Bennelong have sufficient strength of character to be entrusted with our country's highest office? The cover-up of the $9.6 billion deficit was honest John's eighth and greatest honest mistake. A Treasurer, in the end, is judged by his record as an economic manager. Any businessman's economic record can be fairly judged by comparing predicted expenditure and profit levels with actual results. Similarly, I believe a Treasurer's economic record can be fairly judged by comparing the Budget estimates for total outlays and the deficit with the actual final figures revealed at the end of the financial year. A good Treasurer will make accurate estimates in his Budget. I have prepared a simple table of established and actual outlays and estimated and actual deficits for the last seven financial years. I seek leave to incorporate the tables in Hansard. Leave granted. The table reads as follows- TABLE 1: ERRORS IN BUDGET OUTLAYS Budget Estimate Actual Change $m $m $m 1978-79... 28,879 29,045 +175 1979-80... 31,692 31,694 +2 1980-81... 36,020 36,274 +244 1981-82... 40,877 41,339 +463 1982-83... 47,067 48,982 +1,915 1983-84... 56,590 56,570 -20 1984-85... 63,948 63,739 -209 TABLE 2: ERRORS IN BUDGET DEFICIT Budget Estimate Actual Change $m $m $m 1978-79... 2,813 3,478 +665 1979-80... 2,193 2,033 -160 1980-81... 1,565 1,128 -437 1981-82... 97 549 +452 1982-83... 1,674 4,473 +2,799 1983-84... 8,361 7,960 -401 1984-85... 6,745 6,749 +4 Mr LEE —The Budget outlays table clearly demonstrates that Treasurer Howard overspent his expenditure target in every one of his five Budgets. In 1982-83 he overspent his Budget estimates by an incredible $1,915m. Treasurer Keating has a much more successful record in restraining expenditure; the honourable member for Blaxland has not exceeded his target for outlays in any financial year. The Budget deficit table shows that in three of Treasurer Howard's five Budgets the deficit blew out massively. These massive errors in Budget outlays and deficit projections were not, of course, a deliberate attempt to mislead the House; they were simply honest John's ninth honest mistake. I read with interest the following article in last Sunday's Sun-Herald: Howard opts for a flat rate tax system. Federal Opposition Leader John Howard intends to revive the idea of a flat rate income tax when reviewing the Liberal Party's tax policy. Mr Howard said yesterday he wants the party to have another look at the idea. He said he would like to have talks with the Queensland Premier- that well-known economist- Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, who has been the leading advocate of a flat rate tax. At the tax summit in July Sir Joh proposed that a flat rate of 25 cents in the dollar should be levied on all incomes irrespective of size. Mr Howard said he realised that there were a number of problems about implementing a flat rate tax but that there were a lot of things in its favour. The first time the National Party proposed flat rate taxes was in the McPherson by-election in 1981. Let me quote to the House the principled views of the member for Bennelong on flat rate tax at that time. `No flat tax and that's final' and `Blatantly discriminatory, said Howard' were the headlines. The following article then said: The Treasurer, Mr Howard, has ruled out the possibility that the Government will replace personal income tax with a flat rate tax as that advocated by the National Country Party. `The tax simply does not work and has the element of fairyland in it. `I don't believe that the introduction of a flat rate taxation system could conceivably pass the test of equity and fairness which I regard as essential to a taxation system' said Mr Howard. I refer to an article in the Melbourne Sun-News Pictorial in which the then Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia, Sir Phillip Lynch, said that the flat rate tax was just bunk. I understand that in 1981 the National Party's thinktank on flat tax, commonly known as the Flat Earth Society, was headed by the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite). As the honourable member rises in seniority in the shadow Cabinet, the Opposition Leader appears to move closer towards supporting flat rate taxes which, as I have explained, the same gentleman dismissed as a proposal based on the elements of fairyland in 1981. I conclude by returning to my initial comments. The honourable member for Bennelong is not fit to lead the Opposition, let alone to lead Australia. He misled the electors on the fistful of dollars tax cuts. He misled the taxpayers on tax indexation. He misled Australians on the size of the 1978 tax surcharge. He misled the country in promising to repeal the so-called temporary tax surcharge. He misled the Premiers at the 1981 Premiers Conference. He misled the electors on the OECD forecast in 1983. He misled all Australians on the $9.6 billion 1984 Budget deficit. He misled the Parliament on Budget projections for outlays and deficits, and now he is seeking to mislead us over flat rate taxes. The current Leader of the Opposition does not make endless honest mistakes, he is a phoney and he is not fit to lead Her Majesty's Opposition. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(5.52) —Madam Deputy Speaker, it is characteristic of the stumbling nonentities who encumber the benches of the Government that they should engage in the politics of character assassination, and indeed it is a measure of the fear that they have for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) that they do so. We welcome it. They will continue it to their discredit. The Australian people know John Howard and they will get to know him better; that is good for us. The Australian people are getting to know the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) very much better, and that is also good for us. The Budget debate is one of those few debates when matters are at large. Tonight I wish to say something about the portfolio of the Attorney-Gereral (Mr Lionel Bowen), as I have recently been appointed shadow Attorney-General. It is not generally known how widely the Attorney-General's work reaches. It covers the whole field of law and justice. It covers such diverse matters as marriage and family law, companies law and the securities industry, censorship and human rights, civil liberties and the operation of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, business practices and the laws of copyright, bankruptcy and insolvency. Any one coming to this portfolio, whether as the Attorney or the Opposition's alternative Attorney, must have a clear view of the principles he should adhere to. Let me outline some: First, the maintenance of the integrity, the independence and the impartiality of the judiciary. In the past this has been taken too much for granted, but in recent times we have seen a series of spectacular and unusual events deeply dangerous to the public confidence in the judiciary. They are all too well known. I refer to the conviction and gaoling of a former chief stipendiary magistrate of New South Wales, to the trial and conviction of a justice of the High Court of Australia and to a judge of the District Court of New South Wales who presently awaits trial on two charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice. These events have taken their toll on public confidence in the judiciary and that confidence must be restored. This will be no easy task. It demands of the Government that it be scrupulous in its choice of judges, that it avoid any hint of political partiality, that those it chooses be the best the legal system can offer. Our system of justice, its impartiality and its fairness depend crucially on the quality of our judges. Bad appointments necessarily debase the quality of justice, the integrity of the judiciary and ultimately its independence. If bad appointments are made we, in the Opposition, will express our criticisms in unmistakable terms. Second, we must adhere to the principle of certainty, which is basic to the rule of law. Laws must be certain so that Australians may know what they can do and what they cannot do. Uncertainty erodes confidence in the rule of law and that is why the Opposition has constantly opposed retrospective legislation, beguilingly presented by the Government as effective, responsible and fair measures to re-adjust the taxation system. Those kinds of laws are intrinsically dangerous to public confidence in the rule of the law and in certainty. If certainty can be discarded in the tax system, why should any area of law be safe? Third, it must be a central objective of any government-and one this Government seems largely to have ignored-that the courts should be accessible to all Australians, regardless of their means or status. The courts are the last protectors and enforcers of rights. If lack of means denies citizens access to the courts, in a very real sense they become second class citizens. Over the last decade and more there has been an increasing awareness of how vital access to the courts is to the community. Administrative tribunals and commissions have been set up in disparate fields for the protection of rights judged to be neglected, or of groups judged to be discriminated against. Yet the irony is that in this age of concern for rights and easy access to the legal system, many Australians are at risk of being locked out of the legal system because of escalating costs. Litigation by attrition is a harsh reality of our legal system and it is undeniable that while the wealthy, the legally aided and those backed by unions or other organisations can afford to litigate, for many ordinary Australians the cost of litigation, compounded by the further costs that must be met if there is an appeal, put the courts beyond their reach. The fourth principle is that justice must be swift. It remains a basic truth that justice delayed is justice denied. Memories decay, witnesses vanish or die, documents are lost, expenses accumulate and rising legal costs oppress those truly seeking justice. Add to this the emotional wear and tear of litigation, the deprivation of a remedy while awaiting trial and the possibility of spending years caught up in the appeals system and it is easy to see why so often the ordinary litigant with a good case approaches the courts with a deep sense of apprehension. Fifth, there must be equality of treatment of all individuals and organisations before the law. This does not simply mean that each must be treated with equal justice, but it also means that each must be liable to be treated with the same degree of rigour. In a democratic society no matter how powerful, rich or well connected no person or organisation can be beyond the reach of the law. Yet in Australia, under this Government which pays lip service to the notion of equality before the law, we have in a very real sense two classes: Those of us who must obey the law and a group of unions and union leaders who believe themselves to be beyond the reach of the law, a belief that this Government aids and abets. The Mudginberri dispute starkly illustrates the division between those who must obey the law and those who believe they have an option to decide whether they will or will not. That dispute is well known to this House. An interim order was made against the union by Mr Justice Beaumont to lift its pickets against the company whose crime, by union standards, was to make a lawful agreement with its employees under which each side profited. The union refused to obey the order. For this refusal, it was fined a total of $44,000 by the Chief Federal Court Judge. A further and final order to lift pickets was made against the union by Mr Justice Morling. The union again refused to obey that order. For this it was fined $100,000 for criminal contempt by Mr Justice Lockhart. In fining the union Mr Justice Lockhart said that the union `believed it was beyond the rule of law' and that `our society simply cannot function if individuals, corporations or unions take this approach'. He also said: It shows contempt for the institutions that society has created to resolve its disputes. If conduct of this nature is permitted to continue it must result in the erosion of public confidence in law and order and the administration of justice. It will inevitably mean that the peopole will think that there is one law for a trade union and another law for everyone else. Is this not the truth? What was the reaction of the union and that of the Australian Council of Trade Unions to the courts? We know that the union did not confess its error. It did not express contrition. What did the ACTU do? It and the union effectively have rejected the powers of the courts to intervene in their affairs. They have rejected the powers of the courts to treat with them, to deal with them. They have placed themselves outside of the Australian legal system, as though by some divine right of kings they had the power to do this. What has the ACTU said? It has said this: The Congress- the Congress of the ACTU- believe the damages claim and the fine against the AMIEU warrant the maximum degree of union resistance. The need to support the AMIEU in overcoming the penal provisions, damages and fines is paramount. The order the union flouted was made by a court established by this Parliament under a law passed by this Parliament. The claim which the company intends to make against the union is one open to it under a law passed by this Parliament. The fine imposed by the court on the union is imposed under the ordinary and necessary laws possessed by the courts to punish for contempt. The union's refusal to pay the fine and the threatened use by the ACTU of the maximum degree of union power to frustrate the courts are nothing less than a direct attack on the laws of this land, on the rights of private citizens to invoke the protection of those laws, and on the courts and on the rule of law. The ACTU and the leaders of the AMIEU, this privileged group who believe that they should be answerable to no court, to no government and to no private Australian citizen, are saying to the Australian people, in the crudest of terms: `We are above your laws. We are a separate privileged class. We will do anything to protect our privileges. We have the Australian Government and the Prime Minister in our pocket, and the Australian people and the institutions which govern this country can go to hell'. The challenge is one of anarchy. What will this Government do? It is abundantly clear that it will do nothing. Today at Question Time it was apparent from the Prime Minister's answers or, to be more accurate, from his non-answers, that this Government will do nothing; that it will not stand beside the courts; that it will not support the rule of law if the rule of law impinges upon the union, the AMIEU, or the ACTU. The Leader of the Opposition aptly described the Prime Minister as a cockroach pinned in his answers. What did we see? We were treated to the debasing spectacle of the Prime Minister of this country refusing to support the courts, seeking to say that somehow both sides were in some sort of difficulty and were in some ways both to blame; saying nothing about the courts, refusing to meet the issue and seeking to avoid it by suggesting that the matter should go back to the Commission and that the Commission could fix it all up. That was, of course, as the Prime Minister must have known, deliberately misleading, because the Commission has no power over the courts which have imposed the fine. They are quite separate, and nothing that takes place in the Commission can affect the fine which has been imposed by Mr Justice Lockhart or, indeed, the fine which has been imposed by the Chief Judge of the Federal Court. Those are matters for the courts, not for the Commission. It was a cowardly and disgusting charade that we were treated to by the Prime Minister of this country, the person that the previous speaker, the honourable member for Dobell, praised as being the right sort of person to lead Australia through this decade. What do we hear from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis)? It was most revealing of the ACTU, of the union mentality-and by that I mean the union leaders, those who would abuse their position, and not the great majority of men and women who are members of the Australian unions. He said that it was a piddling matter. It only concerned 25 individuals, and who cares about the rights of individuals. Who on the Government side cares about those rights? Oh, we know that from time to time they are plaintive in their support of individual rights. They seek to be eloquent in that support. Yet the truth of the matter is that the Labor Party and this Government divide people into two distinct groups-those to whom they accord rights and those to whom they do not. Union leaders and the ACTU, par excellence, have rights. Indeed, they have rights that no one else in this country can possess. On the other hand, anyone who, rightly or wrongly, is described as a tax avoider does not have rights; and if one goes to the State of the President of the Labor Party, one sees there that his view most certainly is that doctors do not have rights. That is a view, I would think, that the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) would strongly support. Rights, according to my interpretation of what the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations said, which I think is a fair interpretation, are inappropriate where one is concerned with only 25 Australians working in an abattoir in the Northern Territory. Let neither the Labor Government, the Labor Party nor the ACTU be in any doubt about the course we will take when in government after the next election. We undertake to the Australian people that all will be equally accountable to the law, that none will be beyond its reach and that those who are oppressed or injured by the unlawful actions of unions or of any other powerful sectional group will have a speedy and effective remedy in the courts. There is another dimension to the Mudginberri dispute and one that concerns basic democratic values. I have already referred to it. It is a democratic right of employees and management to agree freely and legally amongst themselves on wages and conditions for work. If there is full and free agreement, if each side benefits, if the agreement is lawful, what possible right does any person or organisation have to seek to destroy the livelihood of workers and to destroy the business in which they work? That is precisely what the ACTU intends. What does the new leader of the ACTU say? I shall quote him: What you have got in this situation is the so-called rights of individuals to take action being confused with the collective rights of organisations. This, he tells us, is `something that the trade union movement obviously cannot run away from'. What does he mean? He means that the rights of individuals, rights which are the foundation, the bedrock, of a democratic society, are merely so-called rights. He seems not to understand that in a democracy organisations exist to serve individuals; individuals are not there to serve organisations. But he would dismiss the rights of individuals, since clearly he believes that rights of individual workers at Mudginberri are non-existent, and that to assert them, to claim the right freely to make agreements between employees and management, it is a dangerous attack on the status and privilege of unions. Here speaks not a representative of the workers, but the voice of privilege, the true voice of privilege, and that is at the core of the Mudginberri dispute-the privilege of unions, of union leadership, and the arrogant assertion of some union leaders that they are beyond the reach of law. It is this voice, this claim to special privileges, this dark side of the union leadership, that the people of Australia reject and this Government supports because it can do nothing else, tied as it is to the ACTU. I conclude with a few comments on law reform. It falls into two areas-constitutional law reform and the reform of the ordinary laws of this land. The less said about the attempts of this Government at constitutional reform, the better. The most recent essay has been made by the present Attorney-General, who has put up the bizarre notion that he will select a famous and wise group of 20 people-a couple of former politicians, no doubt a few superannuated union leaders, one or two rock stars-and he will equip them with the Constitution in one hand and a guitar in the other and dispatch them to the four corners of this country to inform the Australian public about the Constitution, and they will come back and a distillation of their wise ideas will be poured into the Attorney-General-God knows he is an empty vessel and could receive a great deal-and we shall get constitutional reform. It is childish. Constitutional reform is far too important a job to leave in the hands of the present Attorney-General. But the Australian people will see that the job does not remain in his hands for long. Lastly, let me make a few comments about reforms of the ordinary laws which safeguard and protect the interests of all citizens. Law reform must be an essential and ongoing process if the laws and their administration are to give the community a system of justice which is fair, swift and accessible. Law reform should not be measured by the volume of laws passed. We already have too many laws and regulations. They have become a burden on the administration of justice, on the Australian community and on businessmen everywhere. In law reform we must be selective. We must resist the temptation to change for its own sake, because change is superfically attractive or glamorous or because it is demanded by some special interest group. We must look at each proposed change and ask ourselves: Is it really justified? Is it needed? Will it benefit the Australian community? A major area of concern, one this Government seems entirely to have overlooked, is the day to day administration of the courts. How are they to be made more efficient? How can delays and unnecessary costs be eliminated? How do we ensure that the doors of the courts remain open to all Australians and that they can approach the courts confident of a fair and speedy hearing and of a wise judgment? These are some of the questions that the Howard Government will face. It is certain that they will be left unanswered by this Government. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(6.11) —I hope that the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) will stay in the chamber to listen to what I have to say which will indicate why honourable members on this side of the House are opposed to private contracting arrangements between employers and employees. In express- ing my support for Appropriation Bill (No. 1) and the Budget for 1985-86, it is a pleasure to be able to report to the people in my electorate of La Trobe that the economic policies of the Federal Labor Government have turned the economy around, from the deep recession of the Fraser-Howard years to having one of the fastest growth rates of any Western world economy. The index of current economic performance prepared by Columbia University's Business School shows Australia with a 13 per cent growth, considerably ahead of Japan and Italy at 10 per cent, Canada at 8 per cent and West Germany and France at 5 per cent. Britain and the United States of America far behind at 2 per cent and one per cent. Unfortunately there are problem areas, and I also have some disappointments with the Budget to which I will refer later in my speech. Despite my reservations, I have to congratulate the Government on the generation of 410,000 new jobs, the reduction of unemployment from 10.4 per cent to 8.2 per cent and on lowering the rate of inflation which has fallen from 11.5 per cent to 5.5 per cent. They are achievements of a high order in only 2 1/2 years of government and they compare very favourably with the disastrous financial policies of the Liberal-National Party Government presided over by Malcolm Fraser and the new Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). I am particularly impressed with the priority program for Australia's youth which is contained in the Budget. Whilst no one can deny the needs of other disadvantaged groups such as older unemployed people, the handicapped, single parents, Aboriginal communities and migrant communities, there is no doubt that the unacceptably high levels of unemployment which are presently being experienced by young people in the 15 to 20-year-old group fill them with despair and despondency. The establishment of the new youth traineeship system for school leavers announced by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is a vital improvement in vocational training opportunities outside apprenticeships for young people making the transition from school to work. I anticipate that I will become involved quite closely in the introduction of the traineeship system in my electorate as will other Government members and, hopefully, Opposition members in their electorates. However, I hope to have more to say about this most innovative program at another time. Suffice it to say that I welcome the comment of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) that the new traineeship system for school leavers will improve their long term employment prospects and ensure that Australia has a better educated and more adaptable work force. My disappointment in the Budget is in respect of its failure to make very much of an improvement in the lot of poor people. Bishop Peter Hollingsworth, the Executive Director of the Brotherhood of St Laurence, said: The rises in this Budget although well targeted to the poorest of the poor were not enough to prevent these people from being worse off in November than they were in March 1983 when the Hawke Government was elected. Harsh words but sadly true. If pensions and other welfare benefit outlays had risen by 8.4 per cent instead of only 6 per cent an extra $350m would have been available to alleviate the plight of the poor, and the resultant increase in the deficit to $5.25 billion would have been still well within the economic trilogy restraint which had been guaranteed by the Prime Minister during the December election campaign. I can only hope and trust that the Government's soon to be announced tax package will contain some measures which will redress the wrong to the poor which the Budget has allowed to continue. In this respect it is vital that the Federal Government accept that if it is to meet one of the undertakings of the prices and incomes accord the social wage must be improved. It must make some additional provisions for the poverty stricken of our society. A particular problem area on which I wish to make some comment is the size of our foreign debt. Statements in the Budget indicate that our gross external debt rose from $44.9 billion on 30 June 1984 to $68.5 billion at the end of June 1985, representing one-third of the gross domestic product. It is of course true, as the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has pointed out, that it is the private sector which is largely responsible for the size of our foreign debt. In the past five years the public sector's share of the debt has fallen from 51 per cent to 38 per cent, while the private sector's share has increased from 49 per cent to 62 per cent. While it is some consolation to know that the Commonwealth Government's foreign debts of $12.7 billion are covered by our foreign exchange reserves of $13.5 billion, I am concerned to note that the net external debt rose to $52 billion, representing one-quarter of our gross domestic product. When the interest and capital repayments on our external debt are taken into account we find that we have to pay out 33.6 per cent of our gross domestic product to meet our overseas debt obligations. As I acknowledged previously, the private sector is largely responsible for the extent of our foreign debt and I am not convinced that the huge increase which has occurred over the past five years represents productive investment. Only recently we had two examples of overseas borrowings being used to improve monopolistic control over brewery and retail interests which could very well turn out to be in the worst interests of the Australian public. I refer first of all to the takeover by Bond Corporation Ltd of the large brewery company, Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd. In order to be able to finance this huge takeover the Bond Corporation had to obtain overseas credit facilities in the region of $910m. These loan funds were arranged by three financial institutions, namely, the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, BOT Australia Ltd, a subsidiary of the Bank of Tokyo Ltd and the merchant bank Wardley Australia Ltd. In the process of the frantic stock exchange trading in the Castlemaine Tooheys shares, a number of large shareholders walked off with millions in tax free capital gains. There was no productive investment in those deals. It should also not be forgotten that the Bond Corporation itself is almost one-fifth owned by the Overseas Chinese Banking Corporation. It is anticipated that the interest rates on this huge overseas loan will be high and we can be sure that in the long run it will be the Australian consumer who will pay in higher prices for the consumer products involved. At this point let me draw attention to Kenneth Davidson's article in the Age of 29 August 1985, headed `How the taxpayer funds takeovers', in which he said: I doubt very much whether anybody believes that Alan Bond's takeover of Castlemaine-Toohey with about $1,200 million of borrowed, largely foreign, money is going to result in a better or cheaper beer for Australians. No, the whole point of the exercise is to shift the burden of taxation from the owners of shares to PAYE taxpayers. Let us say a company is making a profit of $10 million a year after tax, which means it is making a pre-tax profit of close to $20 million. Clearly the company will be worth more to somebody in a position to avoid paying the company tax than it is to the existing owners whose affairs are organised so that they pay company tax before receiving a dividend (or a capital gain if the profit is re-invested). ... ... ... Interest charges are a cost for tax purposes. Not only can that cost be set against the income of the takeover target, but if the cost of borrowing is in excess of the income from the takeover target, the excess costs can be set against the income of other companies within the group. ... ... ... There is little evidence that this development has contributed much to the real wealth of the nation by comparison with the costs... ... ... ... The reason it can happen is because we have an inept bureaucracy, a frightened Government and an Opposition determined to champion private interests-even when those interests are inimical to the national interest. I emphasise that it is important for the Australian public to realise that these huge sums of money do not materialise from thin air. In fact, they arise from the productive efforts of the workers in the companies concerned. I turn now to the G. J. Coles and Co. Ltd. takeover of Myer Emporium Ltd. In this case the funds involved amounted to $970m. This takeover will mean that the new merged group will have a 20 per cent share of the Australian retail market involving, as the chairman of Coles, Bevan Bradbury, has boasted, a spending outlay of $1,500 from each Australian family each year. As in the Bond takeover of Castlemaine Tooheys, foreign loan funds have been made available to finance the deal and an increase in foreign ownership of the new conglomerate is involved. Under the Government's foreign investment policy guidelines proposals to acquire an Australian business should offer sufficient economic benefits to offset the loss of Australian ownership. The United States of America retailing giant K-Mart holds a 21 per cent share in G. J. Coles and as a participant in the deal will end up with a 22 per cent share in the new Coles-Myer company. In addition, although not involving Federal Government approval, foreign loans to support the $970m takeover bid were arranged by broking and merchant bank intermediary companies through foreign banks, including the Bank of America. As in the case of the Bond takeover, there were huge tax free capital gains for some shareholders. I am most doubtful as to whether there will be any economic benefits for the average Australian family. In a speech in this House last year I pointed out that one of the dangers of allowing the licensing of foreign banks in Australia was their ability to make provision for foreign loan funds, resulting in an increase in the foreign ownership of Australian businesses. I am aware that foreign banks have been operating in Australia for many years and my concern has been that the new licensing agreements will not be used to open up new branch networks but rather to provide more profitable financing arrangements for foreign takeovers of Australian industry. The increase in foreign ownership of Australia's resources will not occur in a spectacular fashion but rather will occur gradually as in the two recent Bond and Coles takeovers. As I see it, my fears are well founded as in both cases our overseas private debt and foreign investment in Australian companies have increased. It is for this reason that in February I placed on notice a number of questions to the Treasurer in relation to the operations of foreign banks in Australia. Unfortunately to date I have not received an answer to my questions. In concluding my remarks with regard to our overseas debt and the increase in foreign ownership of Australian companies, it is in my view just as important for the Federal Government to ensure that Australia's economy does not become completely dominated by foreign capital, as it is to improve the output of the economy. The Treasurer has called on the private sector to take advantage of the devaluation of the Australian dollar but, on the record, I do not share the Treasurer's optimism in the private sector as there is very little indication that the business community as a whole will improve its export and import replacement performance and even less that the private sector will provide substantial employment opportunities. That leads me to comment on the strident call by leading members of the Opposition and the business community to reduce wages and salaries, particularly in relation to the devaluation of the Australian dollar. An article in the July issue of Rydge's Business Journal clearly indicates the reasons why the Australian Council of Trade Unions has succeeded in its claim for the full 3.8 per cent rise in the present wage case. The two-year agreement between the Federal Government and the ACTU will save the prices and incomes accord as the Government has guaranteed future support for full indexation after a 2 per cent cut in the wage rise next April and a one per cent cut in the ACTU productivity claim with a trade off of $2 billion of tax cuts from next September. The agreement has also included a government promise to begin to tackle the long needed national superannuation coverage of all workers. Mr Scott —Long overdue. Mr MILTON —As the honourable member has said, it is very much long overdue. This will meet one of the social wage aspects of the accord. However, let me return to the article in the Rydge's Business Journal and draw attention to the journal's tabulation of the fall in real wages which has occurred over the past five years, expressed as a proportion of the gross domestic product. In 1981-82 the wages and salaries component of GDP was 55.5 per cent, but by 1985-86 it had fallen to 52.2 per cent. This 3.4 per cent drop must be compared with the gross profits component, excluding farms. In 1981-82 the gross profits component was 30.2 per cent, but by 1985-86 it will reach 34.2 per cent, an increase of 4 per cent. Honourable members will be aware that the gross domestic product measures national income, national expenditure and national production and is the best short term indicator of Australia's economic well-being. The figures I have quoted make it quite clear that salary and wage earners have fallen far behind company profits in their share of national income and they have a right to demand an increase in their share. As Chanticleer indicated in the Australian Financial Review of 28 August 1985, `profit and dividends are doing nicely, thank you'. Forty-seven of an expected total of about 200 companies listed on the stock exchange have reported on their results for the June half; revenue continued to rise strongly, increasing by 18.3 per cent compared with the previous corresponding half. While pre-tax profit margins are slightly lower at 6.5 per cent compared with 6.8 per cent in the June half last year, this is still comfortably above the figures of 5.3 per cent to 5.92 per cent reported by the same companies in the depressed period covering calendar year 1982 and the first half of 1983. Finally, I quote from the Australian Financial Review of 17 July 1985. An article by John Peters stated: Productivity growth outstripped real wage increases to such an extent in the six months to March that the wages share of total output was the lowest for 15 years, according to the figures in the June Treasury Economic Round-up. Honourable members should note that this has been the lowest for 15 years. But this huge drop in the real level of wages and salaries is not enough for members of the Opposition. They are calling for wage levels which, they claim, will make Australia competitive with our South East Asian neighbours such as Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, the Philippines and Indonesia. Mr Kent —Two dollars a day. Mr MILTON —As the honourable member has said, workers in those countries can earn as little as $2 a day. These South East Asian countries, governed as many are by military dictatorships, have wage levels which are desperately low with working conditions involving long hours in appallingly sub-standard factory accommodation and with trade unions either non-existent or rigidly controlled. The present aim of members of the Opposition is to lower the wage levels of young Australians and they are supporting the exploitative efforts of companies such as McDonald's fast food chain, which last week offered 20 jobs for unemployed teenagers if they would accept under-award rates of pay. Another scheme, which presumably also has the support of the Opposition, is the courier business which is presently employing young cyclists and motorcyclists on a commission basis with couriers earnings about $160 a week, or $100 less than the relevant industry award. Apart from the low wages, the couriers are not adequately covered for personal accident insurance, workers compensation, sick leave, holiday pay or superannuation. This whole disgusting racket, which was written up in an article in the Age of 21 August, has strong connections with the policies of the Liberal and National parties whereby wage earners are encouraged to negotiate private contracting arrangements with their employers to the exclusion of unions and award rates. I notice that the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) is not here to listen to this. In other words, the Opposition is promoting the use of sweated labor. It is also strongly connected with the privatisation drive of members of the Liberal Party. They are proposing that profitable portions of Australia Post, Telecom Australia, Trans Australia Airlines and Qantas Airways, to name a few public corporations, be sold off to private owners. The workers employed by the new private owners would be offered private contractor status involving rates which are less than award wages in the industry concerned and, because they are private contractors, would lack the protection of the trade union movement. I am confident that the Australian public will be very much aware of the threats which the industrial policies of the Liberal and National parties will mean for the preservation and improvement of their living standards and that they will reject them out of hand. I ask the House to reject the irresponsible amendment to the second reading motion of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1985-86 proposed by the Opposition. I commend the Bill to the House. Sitting suspended from 6.28 to 8 p.m. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(8.00) —Of course I support the amendment to Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1985-86 moved by the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock). I address the philosophy of this Budget and the failure of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and his Government to address the real problems facing this nation. My comments will highlight the deadly sins of omission in one area-the enormous loss of opportunity in the deliberate efforts of the Government to avoid discussing matters that are pertinent to the future of this nation in the document we have before us. The Treasurer agrees that this Budget is predicated upon growth and that growth is essential to address employment creation and economic success. Yet the one certain method of obtaining growth does not rate a mention and is not realistically addressed by the Treasurer, the Minister responsible, or his colleagues. The need for growth should be considered against the background of a falling standard of living for Australia, a standard of living which has gone from being the highest in the world to the twenty-first, which it is today. What factors are involved in considering this matter? The first is the extent to which we as a nation continue to live beyond our means. Our debt rose from 14.6 per cent of total gross domestic product in June 1983 to 25.1 per cent in June 1985. Each year we see an adverse balance of trade, including all the so-called invisible costs. The second factor is the rigidity of our labour market which inhibits the creation of new business likely to generate jobs. Small business, the catalyst for American growth, needs freedom to employ new staff on terms and conditions which, whilst not oppressive, are still sufficient for people to make the choice between welfare and work. So much has been said by my colleagues in the Opposition about the Mudginberri dispute in this regard. The third factor involved in considering this matter is our national depreciation of excellence and the encouragement of mediocrity. Whether it is in education, business, work or public service, excellence should be revered and regulations and protection which discourage achievement and initiative should be carefully re-appraised to provide renewed opportunity for competition. The fourth factor is the abandonment of wealth creation as an objective moving to wealth re-distribution as a national goal. Labor's pre-occupation with capital gains taxes, wealth taxes, death duties, and assets testing-taxes of envy-personifies this national failing. The fifth factor is the loss of our national destiny. We still do not recognise our special place in the fastest growing region in the world. Instead of leading we are following Asia, including Japan, Korea and the like. These five points emphasise the problems that we as a nation face. But I positively address some of the means available to secure real growth in our economy. The Government acknowledges that growth is essential. Yet our growth, which is trumpeted by this Government as its record, is the result of broken drought, a world recovery and increased opportunity for capital generation as a result of the Fraser Government's wage pause. The realism necessary is not being pursued in reducing government controls, developing a flexible labour market, pursuing excellence, reducing the national debt, encouraging wealth creation or identifying our special role in the Asian and Pacific region. It is not as though the opportunities and ideas are absent. In the area where I have had responsibility until recently for the Opposition, a wealth of information is available. But this timid Government, bound by years of trade union rhetoric, has run away from one sure way, amongst many, of securing real growth, and that is through substantially increased levels of immigration. In the last sittings of the Parliament no announcement was made of the immigration program for 1985-86. The program, when announced several days after the Parliament rose, largely maintained the status quo. The issue was one not for Parliament but rather for media release. It was also released without publication of the most authoritative and important report on the subject, which still has not been tabled in Parliament. The report, entitled `The Economic Effects of Immigration on Australia' by Dr Neville Norman and Kathryn Meikle, was released again only to the media in late June, three weeks after the program of immigration for 1985-86 was outlined. Yet this authoritative report was clearly available to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs as early as March, and possibly earlier. It was withheld from the public and, more importantly, from those with whom the Minister normally consults on the program before its determination. While the arguments on the importance of immigration for economic growth are well known and demonstrable when related to our past experience, this report puts the myths about immigration to rest. In 1982, under my colleague the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee), the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, along with the Committee for Economic Development of Australia, jointly funded this research project. This most comprehensive report used evidence amassed from simulations using large scale computer models. In a debate such as this I can draw attention only briefly to the report's conclusions, but they are most illuminating. In summary, the report found the additional population resulting from immigration to have had a greater proportionate increase in the labour force, as migrants are generally concentrated in working-age groups, have higher labour force participation rates and are prepared to work longer hours in order to establish themselves. Migrants are hardworking and prepared to work in occupations which Australian-born workers shun. Immigration can also quickly fill gaps in the supply of specific skills, thereby making the work force more flexible. The often-claimed view that immigrants take jobs from Australian workers was not substantiated. Immigrants were found, on balance, to have created through demand effects as many jobs as they took. Other effects of immigration include negligible effects on the inflation rate, increasing returns to capital because of its relative scarcity, minor increases in government expenditure and additional imports and capital inflow. Investment may be encouraged by the additional demand effects of immigration. The level of technology prevailing in the economy will probably be enhanced by immigration and some economies of scale will become available as the economy grows. Immigration adds to the level of aggregate demand in the economy via expenditure by immigrants, expenditures by governments providing services to the additional population, and second-round effects as Australian residents and foreign investors seek to take advantage of the additional demand. Additional immigration would increase Australia's growth rate. The most important chapter for honourable members to read is chapter 10, entitled `Implications and Pointers for Policy'. The Treasurer would have been well served if he had read this report. The Treasurer argues that growth is an objective of this Government. If his plan for Australia was `a faster rate of aggregate economic growth with no detrimental effect on the unemployment rate', he should take note of the very clear conclusion in the Norman report in paragraph 10.2, which I quote because of its clarity: There is no doubt that a substantially faster rate of economic growth can be achieved by increasing immigration levels. This growth can also be achieved without increasing overall unemployment rates, as no causal link was found between higher rates of net migration gain and unemployment. That quotation demonstrates the proposition I am putting most clearly. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford), mischievously responding to my Press comments welcoming this report, suggested that I had not understood, or had misread, the Norman report. He went to other implications in the report to justify some of the Government's announced changes in selection criteria for immigration, particularly the new employability test. While clearly this was a proper view to draw from the report, which I supported generally, subject only to some points of detail, the proposition I have argued and the Minister's which I have supported, are not mutually exclusive. Again, if the objective is achieving an improvement in job prospects of unemployed Australian residents the report is clear in its implications to policy makers: It states: It was found that higher rates of net migration gain are unlikely to increase the rate of unemployment in Australia, but are likely to improve slightly the job-gaining prospects of Australian residents who do not initally have employment. This effect is greater during a recession than during a boom period. This finding is consistent with using higher rates of net migration gain to secure that objective. The report goes on to mention some caveats and some side comments that are required. It adds that the expenditure effects rely on a sufficiency of migrants with funds on entry, job-generating abilities after arrival, and expenditure generation. The report states also that the more the immigration program concentrates upon entrants with these characteristics, the greater the relative boost to job prospects in Australia. Of course, that is a very important point for honourable members to note. It is a point that has been made by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and it is something that I support. But I make the point again that is is not mutually exclusive to the broad proposition contained in this report that economic growth creates more than a sufficient number of jobs-possibly even more-for the number of migrants who come to Australia. It is therefore instructive for honourable members to look at what has happened to our immigration program in recent years. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard two tables-one revealing the total settler arrivals in various broad categories and the other comparing, in proportionate terms, each category to total settler arrivals. I spoke to the Minister earlier about incorporating the tables. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- AUSTRALIA'S MIGRANT INTAKE 1975-76 TO 1984-85 Total Settler Arrivals Category 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 (1) est. Family... 14,980 19,116 20,372 17,225 18,359 19,570 21,769 26,952 33,957 42,000 Refugees and SHP... 4,431 6,187 9,597 13,450 19,954 21,847 21,917 17,054 14,769 16,000 Other... 33,337 44,924 43,965 38,074 42,958 69,773 75,014 49,171 21,079 16,000 Total... 52,748 70,227 73,934 68,749 81,271 111,190 118,700 93,177 69,805 74,000 Note: (1) The data for 1984-85 refer to estimates of the number of visas to be issued. Settlers Arrivals x Category x Proportion of Total Intake Category 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 (1) est. Family... 28.4 27.2 27.6 25.0 22.6 17.6 18.3 28.9 48.6 56.8 Refugees and SHP... 8.4 8.8 13.0 20.0 24.6 19.6 18.5 18.3 21.2 21.6 Other... 63.2 64.0 59.4 55.0 52.8 62.8 63.2 52.8 30.2 21.6 Total... 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Note: (a) The data for 1984-85 refer to estimates of the number of visas to be issued. Mr RUDDOCK —It can be clearly seen that the Labor governments we have had in Australia have reduced, in each of their terms of office, total settler arrivals and, whilst doing so, more recently have reduced the intake of migrants who clearly assist the nation in achieving its economic objective of growth. In 1984-85 family reunion migrants and refugees comprised over 78 per cent of the total program, while business migrants, independent applicants and employer nominations fell to less than 22 per cent in comparison, say, with 1981-82 when the latter groups comprised 63 per cent. I do not intend to be churlish in these obvservations because I think the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs recognises the force of these arguments. He has admitted, as recently as this week, that the total program should be increased to 100,000 within a few years and his changes and foreshadowed changes suggest that increases would be reflected in the economic related areas as well as family reunion. His proposals should, however, be seen against his own qualification that changes will follow improved economic conditions and not-this is my emphasis-as a catalyst for economic growth itself. The implication of what I am saying should be understood against Australia's immediate national interest. First, we need economic growth. Every instrument of policy to achieve this objective should be used. Immigration is one such instrument. Secondly, while many Australians recognise the need for an increased population to assist in better providing for our future national security-our defence-only immigrants will achieve this desirable objective. An increased birth rate, whilst desirable, will not result, even with policies directed to encouraging, in an increased birth rate. Advocacy of such an approach in the context of our international support for other nations to exercise restraint in population growth is highly dubious. Thirdly, our aging population is again a serious problem highlighted this week by figures confirming that now 10 per cent of the Australian population is aged and requiring programs of support. Fourthly, there are structural problems of immediate need in many areas which are not, and cannot be, readily overcome by training and re-training programs. Nurses, in dire need for hospitals all over Australia, cannot be trained as quickly as those who respond to recruitment programs from overseas. Migration should be seen as complementary to effective training programs. There are many areas of shortage of specific skills which immigration can address. Some monopoly trade union practices in my view are designed to improve short term industrial bargaining situations and are not designed to overcome severe labour shortages. Fifthly, growth in areas of new development, such as mining in remote Australia, is aided by migrants who are prepared to settle away from established areas of population. Australian families with children in school, owning a residence and close to relatives, more frequently lack the capacity or initiative to move to such locations, which migrants will willingly do. Sixthly, economies of scale, while not a significant factor in our present market, would still be enhanced to some degree by a larger domestic market resulting from increased immigration levels. It is clear from our past experience that our manufacturing sectors would have been smaller and less efficient than they are now were it not for immigration programs of the past. The Opposition settled a policy for the last election on immigration and ethnic affairs which addressed the major question of selection of migrants. Its policy outlined a non-discriminatory approach particularly in matters of race, sex, cultural background and religion. It gave bi-partisan support to multiculturalism and continued support to important post-arrival programs for migarants. The one area addressed broadly was support for immigration programs in the future which have so successfuly assisted our economic development in the past and so enriched our society both socially and culturally. The challenge for the future is to have the courage to advocate positively and convince Australians of the further benefits to be derived by maintaining and expanding such immigration programs in the national interest. This will not be done by failing to rebut the outdated trade union mythology about immigration and unemployment. It requires bi-partisan support and skilful advocacy of a program, not a gross program of 100,000 immigrants per annum in future years, but rather support for a net outcome of more than 100,000 people now. It needs to be understood that this year's program for 84,000 people includes 8,000 change of status approvals. That means that the program will make lawful the presence of 8,000 people who are already in Australia. It does not take into account the 20,000 to 30,000 people who leave Australia permanently each year. To obtain a net outcome of 100,000 or more the gross program would need to approach 120,000 as it did in 1981-82. Finally, I would like to make some observations on the various categories in which migrants are selected. The implications of the Norman report, while supporting a larger total program for economic growth, clearly suggest increases in business migration, nominations by employers unable to recruit new employees locally and independent migration from amongst those whose skills, education and employment experience will enhance Australia's economic growth. This should not be done at the expense of family reunion, which I would also see as having some potential for growth. Immediate family reunion has always been accepted by the coalition and extended family reunion, with appropriate support arrangements and with some testing for employability to establish priority, is certainly in order. As I have said on many occasions, care needs to be taken to ensure that any employability test does not involve covert discrimination, which I suspect the Minister now recognises as possible under the onerous English language test that he recently imposed. No program modification should occur at the expense of refugees, particularly those for whom there is an Australian association. I mention in particular Eastern European and Indo-Chinese refugees who fall into this category. This year we have seen a 25 per cent reduction in the number of Indo-Chinese refugees to be settled in Australia, a mere 6,000. The Minister argues that this is a result of a marked improvement in the refugee situation in recent years. During the recent recess, I travelled in Thailand and Malaysia. In Thailand there is a reclassification of new arrivals, including many still escaping the repression of Kampuchea-those who are close relatives of Australian permanent residents or citizens. They are arriving as displaced persons even today. They are liable to be forced back across the Thai border at some future time. There is evidence of significant and continuing problems unlikely to be resolved quickly. I found little to encourage me to a view that the existing refugees and the greater number of displaced persons will be resettled within the region, either by repatriation to Cambodia or in Thailand. Yet this is one of the options which the Minister has touted as a reason for a reduced intake by Australia and, by implication, for other developed resettlement countries. Likewise in Malaysia, where resettlement was promised as a basis for temporary acceptance of boat people to avoid their being forced back to the open seas, we have seen in recent months a growth in arrivals which exceeds the numbers being resettled abroad. It is my view, having regard to our role as a nation and as a responsible and humanitarian member of the world community, that to be seen, before this crisis is over, to be reneging on commitments given willingly in the past is quite undesirable. These comments on the future direction that Australia's immigration policy should take are offered in a constructive way. Assured that they will be continued by the Opposition, I am hopeful that in a bipartisan way they will be pursued by the Government for Australia's well-being. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(8.21) —I give this, my speech on the fifth Budget in my parliamentary career, with some trepidation because it comes at a time when we have reached a watershed in the political development of Australia. We have reached that watershed because there have been dangerous political developments. Of course, I refer to the takeover of the Liberal Party of Australia by the extreme Right. This development is dangerous, not because it challenges the future of the Australian Labor Party or the continuing success of the Hawke Government, but because it threatens Australian democracy. It is sad and pitiful to see the once great Liberal Party, founded by Sir Robert Menzies, take the extreme Right Thatcherite road. It has been forgotten that in 1943-44 the then Mr Robert Menzies rejected precisely the very philosophy which is now being touted by the new Liberal Leader. He rejected the idea that the unhindered operation of the capitalist system, without intervention, without regulation, without the support of a substantial public sector, would not destroy our society. The then Mr Menzies based what was to become the powerful Liberal Party on the general philosophical idea that Australia was to be a mixed economy with a substantial human welfare sector, an economy in which judicious government intervention would help guide the nation towards the general goal of full employment. These ideas of Mr Menzies were not those of a left winger. He wanted to achieve, within this context, the sustaining of the profit motive, the sustaining of large inequalities between people and the ensuring that some people could become wealthy and enjoy their wealth. But he also believed that it was necessary to have a welfare net, to protect people and to provide some basic services for them. Those ideas of the then Liberal Party, as developed by Mr Menzies, have now been overthrown by the extremist move to the Right as embodied in the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, and those around him. This move by the Liberal Party is a betrayal by that Party of its own foundations. It is the abandonment of the philosophy which has guided it for nearly 30 years. But, more seriously, it is a betrayal of Australian democracy because it seeks to impose on the Australian people an approach and philosophy which the people have manifestly rejected and which they do not want rammed down their throats by the media, by certain influential individuals in big business and in universities or through the new dogmatism of the Liberal Party. I would have thought that the shameful example of modern Britain, where this economic philosophy has taken hold, would be sufficient to cause any civilised and thinking person to turn away from it and to say: `That won't do for Australia. That is not what we want'. Who in Australia can sensibly embrace the whole outrageous example of monetarist philosophy which modern Britain embodies? Who wants to increase unemployment by 300 per cent; to reduce substantially the standard of living of the Australian people; to increase by 150 per cent the number of people living in poverty; to create massive social divisions; to destroy the industrial structure of the nation; and so on? Yet that is what Thatcherism has done to Britain. Let there be no mistake about it: The Howard philosophy is fundamentally based on the dogmatism of the modern Mrs Thatcher. Let us consider what the Opposition's adoption of that philosophy does to the political possibilities in Australia. We have a situation in which the major Opposition party has moved to such an extreme position that it no longer can claim to represent the hopes, aspirations and ideals of the overwhelming proportion of the Australian people. In so doing, the Liberal Party in fact has decided to go for radical changes which would increase inequality; they would make our society unrecognisable. There would be an end to any attempt to apply the principles of fairness and justice on which we try to base this society and which we ought to be strengthening rather than weakening. The Opposition, in its desperate attempt to get itself out of the intellectual confusion into which it was thrown following the election of the Hawke Labor Government, not only has ditched an honourable leader who was attempting to resolve some of the difficulties inherent in the Party's position but also has, by its move to the extreme Right, done a great disservice to Australian democracy. It should be apparent to everyone who has followed the proceedings of this House in the last week that no sensible position of any kind is now coming from the mouths of members of the Opposition. We now have the extraordinary situation in which all morally and intellectually sensible perspectives, whether they be perspectives in favour of continuing with the status quo or perspectives in favour of genuine reform, are contained within the spectrum of the Australian Labor Party. This situation has been created by the failure of those opposite to recognise that they have a responsibility not to pursue crazy ideological perspectives but to try to represent the Australian people. The representation of the desires and the wishes of the people is one of the pillars of democracy, and on this ground they have totally failed. It is to be hoped that those few sane minds that remain on the Opposition front bench will consider the events that have occurred and will reconsider not merely the disastrous direction in which they are taking their Party but also their duty to the Australian people. The situation as it exists is unhealthy for democracy. We need an opposition which presents sensible and worthwhile alternatives to the people rather than the absurd fantasies which we have heard promulgated here in the last few days-absurd fantasies which, as I have pointed out, have had disastrous consequences in modern Britain today. I have dwelt on this point because it is essential background to understanding why the economic debate has now moved into the realms of fantasyland rather than into discussion of the real issues that confront us. Thus, for example, instead of a discussion of the role of public ownership within a mixed economy, what do we have from the Opposition? We have an attack on our major public enterprises. The Opposition wants to come in like butchers and attempt to smash the public enterprises, to tear them to pieces and in so doing to sell them off to foreign private interests. Let me emphasise just one fundamental and basic fact to these people. The Australian public sector contributes $950m a year in profits to the public purse. I throw out this challenge to the intellectually bankrupt new Liberal Party: How will it finance the additional cost in taxation that is involved in selling off this public sector? The Opposition may say that it will finance it by the savings made in the first year in relation to the price received for the cheap sale of shares, as happended in Britain. But this is a one-off phenomenon. Once a public enterprise has been sold and the money for it received in that year, no dividends will be received in the future. There will be no future profits. The totality of the dividends is lost forever. This means that one has either to cut massively services to the people or to increase personal taxation or some other form of taxation. What the neo-conservatives, the monetarists, have failed to recognise is the fundamental problem with which many western governments have been faced for several years. I refer to the problem of the fiscal crisis of the state. It is the fundamental problem that revenues have been insufficient to pay for the services which the people require and demand. If it were an easy matter to cut back services, would not the Fraser conservative Government have substantially reduced these services and would not the then Treasurer have cut them to pieces, especially given his ideological predilections? Of course he would have. The reason he did not was that in modern democracies the services provided through the welfare sector and through the public sector generally are demanded by the people and the people will throw out the government if the services are not provided. The neo-conservatives have failed to consider this situation in human needs terms. Privatisation means that, because of the pressure to reduce personal income tax levels, the people would have imposed on them, firstly, new forms of taxes which would decrease their standard of living or, secondly, a reduction in the essential services in health, welfare, education and other areas. If the Opposition were to adopt the second alternative, I would urge it to take up the challenge issued by the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, to the Howard team to indicate the areas it would cut so as to reduce the Budget by $8 billion, which is the sort of figure at which it has been looking. We know that if in some extraordinary circumstances such a proposal were to be taken up, it would clearly result in the creation of an inhumane and disastrous society. Let me return to the claim that selling off public enterprises would disperse the shares amongst a large number of people, thereby creating so-called democratic participation in the economy. Of course, the people who make that claim forget the simple point that publicly owned enterprises are already democratically dispersed. Let us look at what has happened to the shares of British Telecom and British Aerospace. The situation shows clearly that, rather than increased democratisation, one has an increased concentration of share ownership. In British Aerospace in one year-from February 1981 to February 1982-the number of shareholders dropped from 157,829 to 27,175-a huge reduction in one year. At the same time the number of shareholders holding one million or more shares increased from one person to 13 people in one year. A similar phenomenon has occurred with British Telecom. So, enough of this nonsense that privatisation means dispersing shares to the workers in the enterprise or to a broad group of people. The shares will always end up in the hands of the very few. In the australian instance this may mean that the shares would end up in the hands of the very few foreign interests that would buy out our major enterprises. The result of that would be the opposite of what has been claimed by the Leader of the Opposition, who clearly has not even bothered to look into the actual empirical consequences of what has happened in the British examples. The saddest thing about all of this is that we are being sidetracked into the foolish question of selling off our established and great public enterprises at a time when we need to look closely at the arguments in favour of greater and more extensive public ownership of the economy. That is the real issue which we should be looking at. To explain why this is the case, let me first outline what I hope is a balanced picture of the economic situation that faces us at the present time. There is no doubt that the economic achievements of the Hawke Labor Government have been extraordinary and substantial. Not only have we had three years of economic growth but it also appears that we are heading for a fourth year, especially if the various positive indicators come to fruition. I believe that the most fundamental cause of this economic recovery has been the central role of the prices and incomes accord. It has provided the basis for a substantial stimulus to the economy, especially through full wage indexation. It has been supplemented by the Budget deficits of 1983 and 1984. It is clear that in steering the economy in this way the Government has been able to create over 400 000 jobs and thus make a substantial dent in unemployment in this country. The Government has cause to be pleased also with its achievements in terms of reduction of inflation; a reduction which has taken place precisely because of the possibilities inherent in the prices and incomes accord. The centralised and balanced wages system has provided not merely greater equity within the work force but also a very high degree of wage moderation and industrial harmony. The strength of the prices and incomes accord is shown also by the remarkable achievement of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) in securing the arrangement with the Australian Council of Trade Unions in relation to the complex and difficult problem of the devaluation of the Australian dollar and its impact on wages. I believe that the agreement that has been reached should provide the basis for the continuation of sustained economic growth. Equally important is the fact that, with some hiccups, it should be the basis for sustaining overall standards of living of workers. Of course, there was a price to be paid for the arrangement. Two billion dollars of tax cuts will need to be found from next year's Budget, but I am certain that with the growth in the economy and a flexible approach to the question of the Budget deficit the Government, while remaining within its trilogy commitment, can meet this goal. I believe that the unbalanced nature of the new Opposition is reflected in the fact that it at no time has recognised that the arrangement with the ACTU constitutes a very substantial concession to business interests. It is a substantial concession in the form of a 2 per cent wage cut which employers no longer have to bear-a 2 per cent wage cut which has to be met through taxation revenues rather than through the profit levels of employers. Furthermore, the complete failure of business interests and business spokesmen to refer to this extremely generous concession, especially in the context of what the Government has already achieved for the interests of business, can be described only as a shocking situation. One of the major changes this Government has brought as part of its program of economic management has been an extremely generous-I would say overgenerous-deal in favour of profits. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table which clearly shows that the level of profitability has increased dramatically under the Hawke Labor Government. Leave granted. The table read as follows- WAGES AND PROFITS AS A PERCENTAGE OF G.D.P. (Supplied by Bureau of Statistics) 81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 F85-86 % % % % % Wages, salaries and supplements... 55.6 56.2 52.4 52.0 52.2 Gross `Profits' Companies... 10.9 10.6 12.4 13.1 13.0 Unicorp. Co.s... 8.3 8.1 7.7 7.5 7.3 Farms... 2.5 1.1 2.8 1.8 1.5 Other... 11.0 11.9 12.4 13.3 13.9 Indirect taxes less subsidies... 11.7 12.1 12.3 12.3 12.1 Total GDP... 100 100 100 100 100 F: forecast Dr THEOPHANOUS —As a percentage of gross domestic product, profits rose from 10.6 per cent in 1982-83 to 13 per cent in 1984-85-a 12 to 15 per cent rise-while wages fell from 56.2 per cent to 52.2 per cent. In these circumstances it is extraordinary that we still continue to hear demands from business interests for reductions in the real level of wages. Let me make it clear that, given that profits now have achieved an historically high level, the attempt to grab a further piece of the cake is totally unjustified and reflects the greedy behaviour on the part of certain interests which justifies the need for government steering of the economy as an essential element of a mixed economy. Surely it should have been recognised that the achievement of these levels of profitability is in itself sufficient to warrant a positive and optimistic approach by the private sector and business interests. They should be going out to increase investment and employment opportunities, especially amongst young people, under these circumstances. Unfortunately, investment patterns from within the private sector are still insufficient. This is notwithstanding the various incentives put forward by the Government and notwithstanding the levels of high profitability which have been achieved. One needs to ask: How much more does the Government have to do to secure a substantial extension of private investment? It is here that we must raise the question, and I believe the Government must face the question: What happens, notwithstanding all these pre-conditions, if private investment continues to be sluggish? If this situation continues, I urge the Government not merely to consider maintaining the profitable public enterprises that it has, but also to consider a substantial extension of its involvement in mixed enterprises and public enterprises. If investment is not supplied by the private sector, especially under the present conditions, the Government should be willing and able to fill the gap. We already have the Australian Industry Development Corporation doing an excellent job with its resources in this area. We need a further extension of the AIDC resources and its willingness to participate not merely in the large enterprises in which it participates at the present time but also in other areas, especially small businesses, high technology enterprises and the services industry area. If the AIDC is prepared to follow this path and if the Government is prepared in general to commit itself to a further extension of public investment in this way, we will provide the basis for a very secure foundation for many years to come-not merely the capacity to provide more jobs in the economy, but also the basis for reducing personal income tax levels and resolving some of the fundamental problems associated with the fiscal crisis of the state. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(8.41) —We as Australian people are leaving a terrible legacy to our young people. As a nation, we are not even aware of what we are doing. This tragedy is occurring in the International Year of Youth and if one reads this Budget properly one finds that it will make the situation even worse. Despite continuing increases in our social welfare budget so that it now represents 28 per cent of all Government outlays, all indicators point to an increasing incidence of poverty in our society. In attempting to analyse this question recently the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) made three statements. He said that poverty could not be eased merely through rises in pensions and benefits. I agree. He then said that there was no way in which poverty could be eliminated and social inequity reduced without a large element of redistribution. So, even though he admits that it is largely ineffective, expenditure will be increased in this area. Then the Minister admitted that this would have to be done in the face of taxpayer resistance. This is a clear indication that the Government does not know where it is heading. This is a pity because so much work has been done in the Social Welfare Policy Secretariat on revamping the tax and social security systems to remove poverty traps which lock the recipients of benefits and pensions into low incomes. The Budget surely would have been the ideal opportunity for airing such a program in an attempt to remove this round robin of poverty, but the Minister has missed that opportunity. More than two million people today are of age pension age and they represent 12.6 per cent of our population. This is expected to increase to 13.8 per cent by the turn of the century and to 21.2 per cent by the year 2031; that is, in the lifetime of today's 30-year-olds. This means that in present day money values the care of our elderly citizens in 45 years time will cost nearly twice as much in real terms for each taxpayer. This is because we have made no provision against today's taxes for tomorrow's pensions and the Government has positively destroyed self-help retirement plans by taxing superannuation and pensioner benefits. While this Government's industrial policies remain as they are, there cannot be a significant, lasting drop in unemployment because permanent jobs are just not being created. Let us be fair; the public service or government programs do not create productive jobs. As shown by the last sweetheart deal between this Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions, full wage indexation is to follow with only a partial allowance next year for the effect of the devaluation. The 3 per cent superannuation deal is based on a productivity increase which has not been shown to exist. The Government and the ACTU have predetermined the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission's thoughts in this matter. The vicious cycle of inflation and unemployment leading to wage increases, to a devaluation of the dollar, to further inflation, to wage increases and to continuing unemployment has become entrenched in our industrial relations system. Because this Government cannot act without the permission of the union leaders in the ACTU, it is powerless to do anything to break the cycle. All this time the ACTU and the Government overlook the obvious link between the level of youth wages and youth unemployment. The Family Law Act, in section 75 (2) (f), requires judges to take into account the eligibility of parties to social security benefits before deciding on property settlements and maintenance payments, thereby encouraging more reliance on the public purse and less on self provision. The Government has budgeted $30m next year for the upkeep of the Family Court to oversee separations and divorces. No wonder some people call it the family breakup law. We have the non-indexation of family allowances and the dependent spouse rebate falling 19 per cent in value since 1982. These are vital benefits to prevent families from falling into poverty, yet they are under constant threat from this Labor Government. This is the forgotten part of the Federal Budget. It is no wonder that the family unit is disintegrating. The rising social welfare bill is only one part of the false expectations which we in this generation are creating for the future and the debt which we are leaving for our children to pay. Altogether, I believe that the indebtedness of our Government is placing and has placed our economy on a course to bankruptcy, as has been indicated in many Press references lately. This is confirmed in the reading of the very Budget Papers we are debating and which the Treasurer (Mr Keating) tabled on Budget night. The second paragraph of Budget Paper No. 1 reads: Australia's current account deficit during the 1980s has been at levels which are both well outside the range of previous sustained experience and which are not viable indefinitely. It is as a result of a succession of large current account deficits that there has been a rapid growth in Australia's external indebtedness. As our productive performance has fallen, our deficits on current account have grown to such an extent that the importation of capital could not keep up. Following a rapid loss of confidence in financial markets after threats were made to our relationship with the United States, our dollar plummeted 20 per cent against the US dollar earlier this year, indicating the contempt of both the United States and the world for our policies and our economy. This devaluation should have improved our export performance and obviously some benefit has shown on the current account in increased exports. But imports are also made more expensive and the balance of trade and invisibles has not been significantly improved. As the Australian dollar has continued to show the low regard in which this country is held internationally, the Government has attempted to shore up the devaluation by having the Reserve Bank sell short term bills at interest rates higher than the market level. This has produced record real interest rates of up to 13 per cent-the highest in more than 50 years. These have a crippling effect on house loan borrowers and also small and large businesses. At the same time the Government has not allowed Australian businesses to reap the benefits of increased export returns. Under the accord, the Government has earmarked all but 2 per cent of the inflationary effects of the devaluation into wages and another 3 per cent into a superannuation claim for a non-existent productivity increase. Exporters will not be able to take advantage of their improved internationally competitive position in these circumstances. I refer to another part of the Budget Papers which says: The combination of domestic cost moderation (from the wage pause and reduced industrial disputation) and the recent exchange rate depreciation has considerably enhanced the competitiveness of Australian industry generally. Provided this improvement in competitiveness is maintained, Australia's external accounts will move over time towards a historically more normal and sustainable pattern. In fact the Government has blown it. Interest rates have skyrocketed, but in a futile attempt to rescue the Australian dollar and in preparation for the inflationary pressures coming from the Budget. Real wage rises are guaranteed under the accord. Exporters cannot respond to their improved international position and Australia is locked, by this Government's policy, into a cycle of continuing high current account deficits. The evidence is already clear. Since the announcement under the accord last Thursday, the Australian dollar has dropped another 5 per cent against the US currency. What does this say about international confidence in this Government's policies? I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table showing the decline in Australia's trade position over the past 10 years and our consequent balance of payments position. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Table 1 BALANCE OF PAYMENTS Period Balance of Trade Balance on Current Account Net Apparent Capital Inflow Net Official Monetary Movements $m $m $m $m 1970-71... 427 -802 1,404 602 1971-72... 931 -340 1,818 1,479 1972-73... 2,183 715 362 1,076 1973-74... 956 -909 485 -425 1974-75... 790 -1,219 761 -458 1975-76... 1,524 -1,404 385 -1,019 1976-77... 1,096 -2,432 1,942 -491 1977-78... 856 -3,043 2,501 -542 1978-79... 686 -3,682 3,558 -124 1979-80... 2,758 -2,009 1,708 -301 1980-81... -459 -5,469 6,619 1,149 1981-82... -3,293 -8,992 10,346 1,354 1982-83... -1,049 -6,389 8,825 2,436 1983-84... 185 -7,379 9,229 1,850 1984-85... -600 -10,165 8,568 -1,598 Mr BRAITHWAITE —As long as our current account remains in such a position, Australia is committed to massive inflows of capital to avoid the collapse of our dollar and an ever-burgeoning external debt. Table 2, which comes from the Budget Paper and which I also seek leave to incorporate in Hansard, gives this same story. Leave granted. The table reads as follows- Table 2 Australia's External Debt Public and publicity guaranteed debt Common- wealth govern- ment (a) Public non- monetary enter- prises (b) Total public and publicly guaran- teed Private debt (c) Total gross debt (d) Official reserve assets Austra- lian lending overseas (e) Net debt (f) ($m) As at end-June (g)- 1980... 5 706 1 439 7 145 6 756 13 901 5 681 887 7 333 1981... 4 838 1 819 6 657 9 137 15 794 5 709 970 9 115 1982... 5 728 3 072 8 800 16 099 24 899 6 517 1 326 17 056 1983... 7 696 5 596 13 292 23 187 36 479 10 748 1 572 24 159 1984... 8 703 8 192 16 895 28 097 44 992 12 417 2 100 -30 475 1985 (h)... 12 747 13 376 26 123 42 343 68 466 13 517 2 947 52 002 (Per cent of GDP) As at end-June (g)- 1980... 4.9 1.2 6.1 5.8 11.9 4.9 0.8 6.3 1981... 3.6 1.4 5.0 6.9 11.9 4.3 0.7 6.9 1982... 3.8 2.0 5.9 10.7 16.6 4.3 0.9 11.4 1983... 4.7 3.4 8.0 14.0 22.1 6.5 1.0 14.6 1984... 4.7 4.4 9.1 15.1 24.1 6.7 1.1 16.3 1985 (h)... 6.2 6.5 12.6 20.4 33.1 6.5 1.4 25.1 (a) Includes foreign investment in domestically issued Commonwealth Government securities, Commonwealth external borrowings and external liabilities of official monetary institutions. (b) Borrowings undertaken by Government-owned or controlled enterprises (such as the Australian Wheat Board, Qantas and, primarily, the various State authorities since 1978). (c) Private debt includes private non-monetary sector borrowings and external liabilities of non-official monetary institutions. (d) Gross external debt includes those liabilities to non-residents which carry an obligation to pay interest and/or repay principal. (e) Lending by local enterprises to non-residents plus external assets of non-official monetary institutions. (f) Net debt equals gross debt minus official reserve assets and Australian lending overseas. (g) Since most of Australia's external debt is denominated in foreign currencies, the Australian dollar value of debt is sensitive to movements in the exchange rate. (h) All figures except for official reserve assets are Treasury estimates. Mr BRAITHWAITE —As the table shows, Australia's gross external debt reached one-third of our gross domestic product last year and our net debt is one-quarter of our GDP. Australia's public debt, owed both within Australia and overseas, has now reached $75 billion, of which the Commonwealth Government and its instrumentalities hold the major share. It was this scenario which prompted Professor Gruen recently to warn the Government that Australia is in danger of encountering real financial difficulties necessitating the intervention of the International Monetary Fund if this progression continues. But the ugly scenario of Australia's future does not stop with our recognised level of public and external debt. More and more human resources are being poured into our Public Service and less is available to the productive market sector. In the last 10 years public employment has grown from 19 to 25 per cent and the ratio of public to private employment has gone up from 23 to 33 per cent. Over the time that the Australian population has increased by 28 per cent, the Public Service has increased by 42 per cent. No allowance is made in the Budget for the retirement benefits of these employees or for their other accruals in long service leave or flexitime. It was roughly calculated in 1982 that if all Commonwealth employees at that time had to have their retirement benefits paid out, the resultant Commonwealth liability would have been $25 billion. Because of inflation, the indexation of wages and the growth in public employment since then, one must conservatively allow for $30 billion, to which should be added provisions for other leave entitlements. To summarise, we have a burgeoning recognised public debt of $75 billion, an uncosted contingent liability for retirement benefits and leave entitlements for our public servants, an aging population with increasing pension and care requirements but with no trust provisions, and an exploding social welfare budget on other items. All these, the contingency for which would total over $100 billion or 1 1/2 times this year's planned total Budget outlays, are actual liabilities against past revenues for which no provision has been made by the generation of Australians who receive the benefit. Our future, and that of our children, has been mortgaged by successive governments, particularly over the last 15 years. The liability for these past debts will fall against future tax revenues coming from a population in which the proportion of work force age is decreasing and in which, if present trends continue, the proportion of the decreasing work force in the productive market sector will further decrease as the market becomes less productive. On top of this we have a massive external debt and a bad current account deficit, and lack international competitiveness. We are on a massive but not so merry merry-go-round. Unless something is done by our generation, the tax avoidance practice of the future will be Australia's youth, the people yet to be born, emigrating from Australia to avoid the taxes necessary to service this nation's liabilities and our extravagances. Fortunately there are signs around the world at the moment which suggest that there are ways out of our current dilemma. I recently read a World Bank staff report in which 20 nations were compared in groups of two; one high taxing and the other low taxing. Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to have that table incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE OF SELECTED LOW-TAX AND HIGH-TAX COUNTRIES AND THE US. Country Per capita income groups US dollars 1979 Real average annual growth rates, 1970-79 (in per cent) GDP Consumption Public Private Gross domestic investment Exports Labour force Labour productivity Malawi (low-tax)... 200-300 6.3 6.1 5.7 2.3 4.6 2.2 4.1 Zaire (high-tax)... -0.7 -2.2 -1.8 -5.0 -1.1 2.1 -2.8 Cameroon (low-tax)... 500-600 5.4 5.4 5.3 7.9 0.5 1.3 4.1 Liberia (high-tax)... 1.8 2.3 4.3 5.2 2.3 2.6 -0.8 Thailand (low-tax)... 500-600 7.7 9.1 6.9 7.7 12.0 2.7 5.0 Zambia (high-tax)... 1.5 1.8 -2.2 -5.6 -0.7 2.4 -0.9 Paraguay (low-tax)... 700-1100 8.3 4.8 7.4 18.7 8.4 3.1 5.2 Peru (high-tax)... 3.1 6.5 2.9 2.7 1.7 3.0 0.1 Mauritius (low-tax)... 1100-1300 8.2 13.5 9.8 16.1 . . . . . . Jamaica (high-tax)... -0.9 8.0 -0.6 -9.6 -6.8 2.2 -3.1 Republic of Korea (low-tax)... 1400-1700 10.3 8.7 8.0 14.9 25.7 2.8 7.5 Chile (high-tax)... 1.9 -0.5 1.9 -2.0 10.7 1.9 0.0 Brazil (low-tax)... 1700-2100 8.7 8.6 9.1 10.1 7.0 2.2 6.5 Uruguay (high-tax)... 2.5 1.5 () 7.5 4.3 0.1 2.4 Singapore (low-tax)... 3800-5950 8.4 6.4 7.2 6.0 11.0 2.7 5.7 New Zealand (high-tax)... 2.4 . . . . . . 3.4 2.1 0.3 Spain (low-tax)... 4300-6350 4.4 5.6 4.4 2.5 10.8 1.1 3.3 United Kingdom (high-tax)... 2.1 2.8 1.7 0.8 8.2 0.3 1.8 Japan (low-tax)... 8800-11,950 5.2 5.0 5.3 3.2 9.1 1.3 3.9 Sweden (high-tax)... 2.0 3.2 2.0 1.1 2.6 0.3 1.7 United States... 10,630 3.1 1.7 3.6 1.9 6.9 1.8 1.3 Sources. World Bank. 1981 World Bank Atlas: World Development report, 1981; and Accelerated Development in Sub-Saharan Africa (Washington, DC, 1981). IMF International Financial Statistics Yearbook 1981 and Government Financial Statistics Yearbook. Volume V (Washington, DC, 1981). International Labour Office, ILO Yearbook of Labour Statistics, 1980. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I thank the House. In all those 70 comparisons except one, the low taxing nations outperformed the high taxing nations. Australia is not compared, but I would suggest, that it is a high taxing nation. I further suggest on those indications, that we are doing poorly as a nation. The interesting feature of this report is that empirical evidence suggests that the low taxing nations were better able to provide for welfare and education services than the high taxing nations. Again, President Reagan of the United States has decreased personal rates of tax from a maximum of 50 per cent to 35 per cent and corporate tax from 46 per cent to 38 per cent, and he expects to increase the overall tax take. Furthermore, in another recent report from the United States, it was found that the actual incidence of poverty has decreased in the US following the implementation of Reagan's lower tax rates. So I would be bold enough to suggest that major incentives would be injected into our economic system if tax rates were reduced and flattened. The other remedy is to cut expenditure. Between the three levels of government in Australia there is costly duplication, which means excess expenditure on local roads, transport, sport and culture, industrial development, delivery of health and social services and education, just to name a few. Then that growing proportion of public employment to private employment could be looked at. Privatisation of some of our public utilities is, I believe, necessary. In the social security arena we must place much more emphasis on self provision by encouraging retirement planning and home ownership throughout one's working life, not by government autocratic regulation and rule, but by incentive and reward. We must remove the disincentives against self provision from the taxation and social security legislation. We must make greater attempts to remove the poverty traps which lock poor people into dependence on our social security system. We must encourage couples entering marriage to accept the responsibilities of that relationship for life so that children of the relationship do not become a liability against the State if the relationship should dissolve. We must look at the work test applied to our unemployment benefits and open up the training opportunities for our young people so that they do not endanger their unemployment benefit by undertaking training. We must examine the operations of the Family Court of Australia and the Family Law Act to ensure that the responsibilities are recognised, accepted and implemented not only in the decisions of the Court but also in adequate enforcement thereafter. We must use the taxation and social security system to assist families in the child-rearing responsibilities and not to penalise the single income family which chooses to accept the larger part of the responsibility for raising one's children instead of passing that responsibility to government-funded child care centres and schools. Australians should require the Government to live within its means, on a balanced budget, except for emergency expenditures. With an effective control on the level of government spending I believe that we, as a nation, can move a long way towards ensuring that governments waste less of taxpayers' money and spend only on the more important issues. Mr Deputy Speaker, Australia is heading into a quagmire. We cannot keep living beyond our means as we are at the moment. Australia's worsening incidence of poverty is not an unfortunate result; it is a natural outcome of the policies which our governments have followed for much of the last 15 years, and we will not get out of this mess by more government spending. It is time that members on both sides of the House realised the situation and took corrective action through future Budgets. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(8.57) —The previous speaker, the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), finished by saying that we are `heading into a quagmire'. What utter nonsense! What utterly ridiculous words to use of a government that has led this country out of a quagmire, a government that inherited from the opposition one of the worst economic situations in its history. Three years ago this country was on the brink of economic disaster, masterminded, I remind the House, by the then Treasurer, now Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). Inflation was raging and unemployment had reached a peak of 10.4 per cent-double-digit inflation and double-digit unemployment. The prophets of gloom and doom were understandably having a field day in that scenario. It is in the light of that scenario that the present Budget and the underlying government strategy must be examined. This Government, unlike the previous Government, has tackled this country's economic ills with a rigour and determination rarely seen in its political history. Let us see firstly what has been accomplished and secondly what this Budget is setting out to do. Employment has been seen as a high priority for this Government. It has reduced the unemployment rate from 10.4 to 8.3 per cent. This is still much too high and the resources of the Government will need to be marshalled to reduce the level further. Some 410,000 new jobs have been created and we are well on the way to meeting our target of promising to create 500,000 jobs in our first three years in office. The blowout which we inherited in the Commonwealth deficit has been arrested and reduced. We have reduced the inflation rate to a more acceptable level. This Government's efforts have turned the economy around from deep depression, from the quagmire to which the previous speaker referred, to having one of the highest growth rates in the Western world. This Budget cuts the Budget deficit from $6,746m in 1984-85 to $4,919m in 1985-86. This deficit represents 2.1 per cent of gross domestic product, compared with 3.3 per cent in 1984-85 and 4.3 per cent in 1983-84. The proof of this Government's financial responsbility can be seen in the fact that we have more than halved the deficit as a share of the total economy. In the words of the editorial in the West Australian of 21 August 1985-and I hope that Opposition members will listen to these words, because the West Australian is not a paper which is noted for radicalism in its journalism: The Budget can be seen as displaying economic responsibility of a kind not seen in Budgets for years. I turn to some of the specific initiatives in this year's Budget. The farming community will be pleased-despite the cries from the cockies corner-with the measures announced in the Budget. From 1 November eligible primary producers will receive a full rebate of excise on diesel fuel. This means that their diesel fuel will be excise-free and this will reduce the price of diesel used by farmers, fishermen and other primary producers by 2.4c per litre. Additionally, from 1 January 1986 the tariff on grain harvesters will be replaced by a subsidy on local production. This will reduce the cost to farmers of this equipment. These measures are expected to cut primary industry costs by about $25m in 1985-86 and $46m in a full year. It is appropriate in the International Year of Youth that this Government has paid commendable attention to improving the position of young people in the community. In this country 230,000 young people, or 15 per cent of young people in the potential labour force, are recorded as unemployed and as seeking full time employment, with all the problems and all the traumas which that brings. They represent 8.8 per cent of the total population of young people. Since this Government came to office, it has created about 76,000 more jobs for young people. It is unlikely, however, even with rapid economic growth, that there will be an early return to low levels of unemployment. Additionally, too many young people are inadequately housed, receive inadequate health care, and have unmet welfare needs. This Government firmly believes that youth should share fully in the benefits of economic recovery and growth. To that end, a three-pronged policy for job training, financial support and education of young people is expected to cost $70m in 1985-86 and $190m in 1986-87. This Government will create 10,000 new 12-month traineeships. This scheme will provide young people, mainly 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds, with a combination of both training and work lasting for a minimum of 12 months. When fully implemented in 1988-89, 75,000 young people will enter traineeships annually. This is a positive response to a serious social problem by a government which cares. A further illustration of the fact that this Government cares can be seen in the rationalised income support provisions for young people presented in this Budget. In 1986 nearly all young people currently eligible for unemployment benefit or the major educational allowances will receive higher levels of assistance. In 1987 allowances will move to an age-related basis and special measures will be introduced for young people without parental support. These measures will be fully operational by 1989, and they are measures long overdue. I am very pleased to see that the Government has provided a 23 per cent increase in the allocation of funds to the community youth support scheme. This will allow cost of living adjustments to all grant levels and the upgrading of some projects, and it will provide half a million dollars for training of CYSS project officers. I am pleased with this measure as it will impact positively on the three CYSS programs serving my area-those at Lockeridge, Midland and Whitford, the staff of which deserve high praise for their dedication on behalf of unemployed youth. These and other support services for young people show this Government's firm commitment to giving the youth of Australia policies which directly relate to their needs. The third prong of the new policy for youth relates to education. An immediate effect of increased year 12 enrolments has been additional pressure on the tertiary education system for more places. This Government has addressed the problem by embarking on a policy of expansion of higher education. Funding levels already approved are providing for a growth of 15,000 in higher education enrolments in the 1985-87 triennium. This Budget allows universities and colleges to enrol about 5,000 more students by 1987. That means that the total increase over the 1985-87 triennium of higher education enrolments will be over 20,000. The allocation of 100 special awards to Aboriginal students, mainly of mature age, to enable them to undertake full time teacher training is a recognition of one of the needs in Aboriginal education. Whether we use Norman's personal measure of Budget achievement-the thickness of Budget statements-or whether we use some other esoteric measure, we find that this is a good Budget. We promised to deliver on the trilogy, and we have done so. This Government has shown great financial responsibility and has set the scene for strong growth in the coming years. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) is to be congratulated on his handling of the economy. He is both a visionary in economic matters and a man of courage. I support the Bill before the House. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(9.08) —In reading the Budget Speech by the Treasurer (Mr Keating), one gets the clear indication that it is an arrogant and cynical speech-program after program and promise after promise built, of course, on the success that was handed on to this Government from the Fraser Government's wage freeze, the economic capacity now built into the system for the last several years which has enabled this Treasurer to come out with these sorts of statements in the first and second pages of his speech. He says egotistically: The evidence of our achievement is indisputable. We have turned the economy . . . We have generated 410 000 new jobs . . . We have reduced inflation . . . And so he goes on, as I have said, with the resources handed on to him, and without blushing he claims credit for the natural result of the dissipation of inflation, the reduction of inflation that occurred because of the previous Government's action. The Treasurer's speech is not the speech of a financial manager. It is a blatant political defence of his failure at the tax summit, a failure which has been very conspicuous in this document, in that the document does not contain the tax reforms that were mooted, and neither does the promise of option A of the three options put to the summit hold the promise of the tax reforms that the Treasurer so widely touted and lobbied for around Australia. It is interesting to read the presentation of his case in the community for tax reform prior to the summit. In an interview on the Michael Schildberger program on Tuesday 18 June, the Treasurer made a number of pertinent remarks in answer to questions which were off the cuff. In the first of the remarks that I will quote tonight, he said: . . . so this I see as just a first class chance to do something about the tax system which so many Governments have failed to look at for as long as we can remember and without a decent tax system, you can't in the long term keep a dynamic economy . . . The Treasurer went on to say: It was on that basis that I thought we could only attack the thing comprehensively that doing a repair job wasn't appropriate and that the only way we would basically be able to off-load the enormous burden on income tax was to find another base in the system on expenditure. Taxing expenditure as well as income. He went on to say: What will happen is that unless we find another major base in the system, and tax expenditure in some way, then it will be the ordinary working people who will carry the burden. He was further asked the following question: Paul Keating, are you in the home straight, do you think that? He replied: Oh, no, we are still cantering around the course . . . we'll get into the home straight in the summit and after the summit and that is when we'll really get steam up. He went on to say: Because if the Labor Party does not touch a consumption tax on this occasion it will never touch one. The results speak for themselves unlike the fancy, dressed-up speech made by the Treasurer in his Budget preparation. The results show that the Treasurer, so confident in his sallies around this country, failed absolutely to carry his main theme of tax reform in Australia. He has no mandate from the Summit and, certainly, he has none from his colleagues in Caucus to proceed with the tax on expenditure that he mooted to the Australian community. So he has failed, and his response to failure, as I have said, has been to proceed with a vigorous presentation of success built on the actions of another before he came into office. In another section of that interview, the Treasurer said: . . . they think that you can do it all off the government sector. You know you write a bigger cheque off the budget and that employs people. It dosen't. All it does is push the Commonwealth's debt up. That means higher interest rates . . . Referring to debt, the Budget which we are considering in this debate holds the prospect for the Australian people of another deficit of $5 billion. Mr Fife —How much? Mr STEELE HALL —Just under $5 billion. It is simply a big lie for the Treasurer and the Government to sell as a success story the reduction of the deficit from nearly $7 billion to $5 billion. It represents a miserable failure and mismanagement of the finances in this country. Australia cannot afford a continuing deficit of this nature. A clear outline of the costs of the current deficit and of last year's deficit was provided by the now Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) in a statement he released a few days ago. These figures are obtainable from all the Budget documents. The Leader of the Opposition indicated that there will be a massive $6.7 billion cost allowed for in the Budget this year to meet the total deficits of this country. The interest bill has increased by $1 billion-$1,000 million-on last year's figure. Australia just simply cannot afford to continue financing deficits when the cost of maintaining that deficit has increased by almost 19 per cent since last year. The truth of the matter is that one of the greatest individual expenses of the Government is the maintenance of the debt that it is rapidly accumulating in this community. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, the interest of $6.7 billion paid on that debt is equal to about $20 a week for every taxpayer. One does not have to go on citing figures to make the point that Australia simply cannot afford that. That is not simply the most vital criticism that can be made of deficits of this nature. The problem is that the Government continues to accumulate deficits at a time of growth. If there is one thing that a government and a Treasurer look for to succeed in the community, it is to have growth from which not only to build programs to serve the community but also to strike a state of equilibrium in the finances of the Government. On page 10 of the Budget Speech the Treasurer made this point: Once again in 1985-86 Australia is poised to record one of the fastest growth rates in the developed world. That was his claim yet at a time of peak and record growth, he will be maintaining a huge Budget deficit to the extent of almost $5 billion. It ought to be evident to the simplest student of economics that if expenditures cannot be controlled at a time of growth and bouyancy they will never be controlled at a time of recession. Anyone who has studied the waves and troughs in this economy or in any economy knows that the economy proceeds through times of retardation or recession and periods of strong growth. So if this Government is in charge of Australia when we enter recession, with a deficit running at $5 billion, we can expect enormous problems to confront the community. Under such stewardship a government similar to this Government would be quite unable to meet the public responsibilities that it owes to the general community. The only way to run a Budget is to run a balanced one. There ought not to be a deficit in this Budget. All this Budget is doing is funding programs which may be desirable and which are said to be desirable to the community, but it is making the next generation pay for them. The problem is that the community of electors who should adjudicate on whether this is a desirable Budget is unable to recognise the factor of government responsibility if the community does not pay the taxes now to meet the spending programs of the Government. So the Government is simply putting off the electoral consequences of restoring balance to the Budget by maintaining a heavy reliance on deficit budgeting. I maintain that the Government is lacking in financial discipline. Evidence of this is quite clearly available to the community in the fact that State Premiers no longer squeal about their allocations. It is remarkable that on Wednesday, 28 August of this year, there was a report in the Australian Financial Review which stated: The State of Victoria yesterday announced a profit of $27.7 million for the year . . . even after squirrelling away $45 million in full. There are three State Labor governments in this country and the Commonwealth Government is letting them get away with financial murder. It is simply refusing to discipline them. I invite you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and other members of this House to tell me of any real complaints from a State Treasurer in the last 12 months or two years. The facts are that the States are getting more than they should get. The overexpenditure and absolute squandering of financial resources by the State Labor Premier in South Australia is an indication that the central Government that provides so much of State financial resources is simply not exerting discipline on that enormous spending community-State governments. Mr Fife —An example of poor management. Mr STEELE HALL —It is an extreme example of poor management. In fact, it shows lack of control over a scene which requires so much supervision by the Federal Government. This inefficiency not only exists in State governments but also creeps down to local government. Those of us who are aware of our local government organisations are quite aware of the enormous waste of expenditure that is evident within local government. Recently, I received a newsletter from my local council. It was volume 1 No. 1. I looked inside to the second page, where it announced an increase of two in the staff of the council. The first member of staff will organise and supervise the social services of this council. The second member of staff has been appointed to produce this newsletter. As a ratepayer in my district I resent the appointment of both of those staff members. They are an added burden that no ratepayer asked for in the St Peters Council. That Council is a recipient of its share of $500m provided by this Federal Government to local government in Australia. The inefficiencies which are so evident in this Federal Government-the lack of management, the lack of control and the false claims of the Federal Treasurer-are filtering through to the other two tiers of government in this country. Many of the problems of this Government are due to its cosy relationship with the unions in Australia. We can have no greater illustration of that cosy relationship than the wages deal that has just been completed by this Government with the Australian Council of Trade Unions which, quite obviously, will allow an increase of approximately 10 per cent in the cost of wages in the coming 12 months. At a time when our trading partners are running a rate of inflation of approximately 4 per cent, it is utterly outrageous that this Government could agree to a wages deal which will create an increased cost of 10 per cent in 12 months. Mr O'Keefe —Oh, what nonsense! Mr STEELE HALL —It is not nonsense. As the honourable member knows, the Government has approved a 3.8 per cent increase now. It will support a 2 per cent increase in April and it will support full indexation in September next year. If the honourable member cannot total 10 per cent out of that he is not good at his addition. Ignoring international competition, the Government has agreed to one of the most inflationary increases in wage costs in recent times and will utterly destroy the advantages of the Fraser wage freeze which was handed on to it and upon which it has built its early success or claimed successive expansion. In the last few minutes available to me I want to mention the Mudginberri matter. A couple of months ago I visited the site. I drove by the picket line with my colleague, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), who is absent at the moment. I am very pleased to congratulate him on his elevation to the shadow ministry. In that pleasant trip of five days through northern Australia we investigated this matter. One is immediately struck with the simple truth that there was and is no dispute at Mudginberri. That there was a dispute is the big lie that has been perpetrated and propagated around Australia by members of this Government and by the union movement. The only thing that has occurred that has disturbed the peace is an illegal action, an action in contravention of the laws of Australia. But there has been no dispute. It was interesting to drive by the picket line and to see the caravans, tents, debris, tables, beer bottles and all the rest of the facilities that go with a picket line in the outback, placed in a national park. The park was occupied by that picket line for weeks on end. Of course it was an illegal action to camp in the park. When someone raised this matter with the picketers they said: `We have got permission'. One of the smaller mysteries of the Mudginberri matter is who gave them permission to camp in a national park. I invite anyone who might be an innocent citizen of this country to take his caravan and his friends to the national park and try to get permission to camp in the same spot now that it has been vacated. Would ordinary people, who are not friends of the Government, who are not in this cosy relationship with the unions, be allowed to park illegally just for the purposes of enjoying the scene? Mr Connolly —That is right; broke all the regulations. Mr STEELE HALL —My colleague the shadow Minister understands this clearly because his responsibility is in this area. We get the confirmation yet again that this Government has supported not an industrial dispute at Mudginberri but an illegal action. This was the subject of the questions pressed so diligently by the Leader of the Opposition against the Government today. This cosy relationship confirms again a statement I heard a good number of years ago in the South Australian House of Assembly by a very reputable Labor gentleman called Charlie Wells who said: `The parliamentary Labor Party is simply the political wing of industrial labour'. I have never forgotten that statement. Year by year and week by week members opposite prove the truth that they are simply the captives of the union movement. Mr O'KEEFE(Burke)(9.26) —One cannot help observing in the Budget debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) that we have on the other side of the House an Opposition which really is just going through the motions. The drivel in response to this Budget that is coming from that side of the House is not related to the Appropriation Bill and not related to the Budget brought down by the Treasurer (Mr Keating). Despite the words of the new Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), that he would be making sure that credit would be given where credit was due, what do we see? Instead of acknowledging what has been achieved and what the Appropriation Bills really represent, we have this continuing tirade of irrelevant drivel. I, for one, plan to return to the point of this debate. This Budget will be looked on in the future as the turning point for Australia. I regard it as the springboard Budget. I will be using that term as my perspicacity proves to be fulfilled. This Budget represents an outstanding achievement in economic management. To observe the faces of those on the other side of the House on Budget night when the Treasurer announced a deficit of $4.9 billion, many hundreds of millions of dollars below that which had been expected, was something of a sight. They were completely astonished. I must say there was a fair bit of awe and admiration that this had been achieved. I think this is a time to allude to the magnitude of the recovery that has been achieved. It is a substantial achievement. Many people do not appreciate the depth of the recession into which this economy had sunk. A $9.6 billion deficit was the legacy of the Howard-Fraser Government. Within two and a half years that has been turned around and almost halved. Those who preach small government and who produced big government must now sit by and watch as the real feats are achieved-such as the inflation rate reduction, the turnaround in the labor market and job creation. All those things members opposite are choosing not to speak about. What better indicator could one have of the Australian economy than the housing industry? This was a totally depressed industry. Now it is at the height of a boom. In two years the housing industry has been turned around very substantially, mainly through the injection of government capital funds in the public sector and through the injection of the first home buyers scheme. Everyone except those opposite understands that in Australia when the housing industry is going everything is going. It is with some pride that one can observe the turnaround that has been created. Apart from the economic achievements, there has been a development and an achievement of a very different kind, one that relates a little to humanity and to what we are on about on this side of the House. Prior to our coming to office we had a society with substantial components of misery, poverty, unemployment and, above all, industrial disputation-what I choose to call the Howard-Fraser politics of misery. It was deliberately practised in our community. We have managed to turn the situation around and to restore hope to the people of Australia. A while ago some reference was made to the relationship this Government has with the trade union movement. If that relationship produces something such as the prices and incomes accord, the most successful social package introduced in an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country in a decade, I do not back away from our relationship with the trade union movement. I am proud of it. As long as honourable members opposite preach this stuff, as long as they say that Australia's 2.6 million members of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and their families are on the wrong train when they co-operate with the Government, they will stay on that side of the House. I do not mind if they never learn the lesson. In respect of the prices and incomes accord and the decision of the ACTU at its annual conference this year to endorse the package announced last week, I simply congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Treasurer, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) and, above all, the ACTU for the role that they have played in restoring Australia's economy. Another aspect of our recovery is the management of government. I commend the Government's decision to introduce the May economic statement and, by doing so, achieving the Budget gains in a full year. I also commend the Government for providing the Australian community with a clear outline of our future directions. One needs to turn only to the reception of the Budget, not only in the financial Press but also in just about every sector providing what I would call objective assessment, to see that the Budget has been recognised as something of an achievement. Again, I allude to the looks on the faces of honourable members opposite, particularly in the area they call cockies' corner, when the Treasurer announced the decision to grant a full fuel excise rebate for farmers. Did that bring deafening silence! Out of the sails went all of the wind. The National Farmers Federation is now trying to find something else. As the Prime Minister said today in Question Time, a very long telescope has had to be drawn to try to find something about which to manufacture some discontent. I suppose that I should refrain from the use of a phrase such as `cockies' corner' because it is quite obvious that the members of the National Party of Australia do not represent the interests of farmers. We should cease to refer to them as `cockies' corner'. I give you my undertaking, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I shall cease to use that term. I congratulate the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) for the way in which he is developing a relationship with the farming community. He has called on its members to work with us. He is working with them. His recent speech to the National Press Club displayed a clear and excellent outline of the future directions of our rural sector. Certainly there are hard questions to be faced. However, at least that sector has some confidence that this Government knows where it is going and can take it there. I refer in particular to three aspects of the Appropriation Bill. The first is the decision to inject $1,250m into the national road funding program through the road transport program. I represent an electorate that has a significant rural component. I am aware of the importance of roads to the rural sector. They mean not only communications and transport but also job creation. Many of my councils rely on the road funds to maintain their work programs. I congratulate the Minister on that program. The second aspect of the Bill on which I comment is funding for local government which not only has been maintained in real terms but also has been increased. If that, above all, is not an indication of the importance this Government places on the relationship with local government, I do not know what is. As a government we are committed to working with the third tier. In doing so we are aware that local government is the body responsible for reflecting priorities at the local level. We respect that. Thirdly, I turn to the community employment program. Here again is a program that has played a very major role in getting young Australia back to work. I have seen some wonderful examples. In a small town in my electorate called Woodend not only is there a successful CEP project going on but also built into that project is at least two hours a day of on-the-job training that will lead to a formal qualification. It is a credit to the council involved that it has put a significant number of young people-I forget the exact numbers-through the program and has achieved a 100 per cent placement rate. Every person working through a CEP project with that council has gone on to permanent employment. That is an indication of what this Government and this project is all about. I also refer to what will now be the number one priority of this Government, the Priority One project-Young Australia. This project represents a response to the report of the Kirby Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs which outlines for us as a government the appalling problem we inherited in regard to young Australia. In direct contravention to the approach of the previous Government, within two months of the tabling of this report very significant and prompt action has been taken by the Government. It was not put into the pigeon hole as yet another useless, wasted report. The report was acted on quickly and results produced. I commend the actions of the Ministers involved. Our young people can look forward to something of a future now that this Government is prepared to address education, skills and technology. It comes back to humane considerations. As I mentioned previously, it was not us who discarded the young. It was not us who put the young out on the dole queues. It was not us who invented terms such as `dole bludger'. They were the shame of the Howard-Fraser Government. Finally, I make some observations about what I see as the position of the Opposition. The new Leader of the Opposition was touted as coming to us with considerable economic expertise. From what we have seen in the few short days since he has been Liberal Leader that could not be further from the mark. His performance as a Treasurer led to a deficit of $9.6 billion and unemployment of 10.2 per cent. Let us compare the job creation record of the last Government with ours. We promised that 500,000 new jobs would be created in the first three years of the Hawke Government. It is now looking very much as though there will be 600,000 new jobs. Where are the accolades? Where is the credit where credit is due about which the Leader of the Opposition talks so much? There has been deafening silence-not one mention of it during this whole Appropriation Bill debate. The Opposition failed then. It will continue to fail with policies such as it has. Let us look at the policies that are now being espoused as those of the new revitalised Opposition. The Opposition would cut back Government. When people out there hear the Opposition talking about cutting back government, they generally think it means: `Let us get rid of public servants'. That is what they would like to think the Opposition means. However, it never means that. It means cutting back public sector capital works, road funds and jobs such as building police stations, hospitals and schools-providing social capital works. These are the jobs that small business and small business contractors rely on. It is no coincidence that, when these cutbacks were made during the years of the Fraser Government, small business bankruptcies in Australia reached an all time record high. It is no coincidence, now that we have reversed those policies, that small business is back on the road again. Honourable members opposite ought to take a look at some of those trends and learn from them. Just as an observation, I am sure that those members of the Public Service whose jobs are on the line under these new policies are delighted. No doubt they are leaping on the Howard cart. Honourable members opposite have talked about breaking down the centralised wage fixation system we have in Australia. That deserves very little comment. It simply meeds to be said that during the period 1980 to 1982, when the Howard-Fraser combination reached an all-time low in its relationships with the trade union movement, we had record industrial disputation, the centralised wage fixation was abandoned and our industrial relations, our economy and our community fell into disunity and disarray. Look at what has happened since we have introduced the accord. I do not think that too many people will be interested in the Opposition's policy. We have heard much about privatisation in the last few days. Again that is hardly worth commenting on. I am sure that other members will do so. I am prepared to watch privatisation unfold and I am prepared to watch honourable members opposite, one by one, quietly back away from it. Last week, in a poll that was undertaken, a significant number of Australians seemed to show some support for the broad concept of privatisation. I think that is simply confusing the issue of cutting back the public sector. People who participated in the poll were asked: `Which aspects should we privatise? Should we privatise Telecom Australia?' Only 5 per cent of those people were interested in privatising Telecom. Not even the supporters of honourable members opposite were interested. Six per cent of people were interested in privatising Qantas Airways Ltd. and 5 per cent were interested in privatising Trans Australia Airlines. When we actually turn to people and say `What about this wonderful privatisation concept?' they say: `Hang on, not that'. Of course, we will finish up talking about some nonsense that will never come to fruition because the people of Australia are not interested in it and they will not buy it. I think we will sit back and we will watch the flaws appear-in fact they are already coming through. My colleague the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) mentioned tonight the British model of privatisation. That seems to be what the theory is based on. I wonder why we would want to draw upon the British model as something that we should adopt for our current economy. I do not think much more needs to be said about that. The editor of the Australian Financial Review, who is in England at the moment, gave a pretty incisive outline a couple of weeks ago of the effect of Thatcherism and the British privatisation model. He mentioned-I thought this was quite delightful-the big sell-off not of Telecom but of council houses. Britain intends to sell off public housing. Heavens above! Wait until honourable members opposite come forward with that proposition. The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) outlined in the House today how the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), a front bencher from the National Party of Australia, issued a Press statement last weekend, which was carried on radio 3BO in my electorate, disowning the sell-off of Telecom. The split has already appeared. I predict that Mr Lloyd will be the first person to climb off the Howard cart. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member will call the honourable gentleman to whom he referred the honourable member for Murray. Mr O'KEEFE —I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, I got carried away. I predict that the honourable member for Murray will be the first to climb off the Howard cart. I predict that the Leader of the Opposition and former Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong, the $9 billion deficit man, will finish up all alone in space with the satellite of the Minister for Communications. Honourable members opposite are climbing off the cart as quickly as they can. The performance of honourable members opposite is pathetic. Their tactics and their focus are appalling. The public will not buy it and certainly the National Party will not buy it. The policy of the Opposition is so fragile that it could not go two rounds in a revolving door. I can see the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), who spoke so eloquently on this matter yesterday, already sharpening up the knife. I think honest John's political life expectancy is pretty short. I am not given to idle accolades but I think the Government should be given credit for what it has achieved in this area. This Appropriation Bill represents an outstanding Budget. It is the springboard for our future. It has restored confidence in the future and I feel that we have turned the corner in regard to our economy. I am proud to be part of a government that is achieving all this. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee)(9.47) —This Budget debate should have been deferred until the Treasurer (Mr Keating) placed before the Parliament the final draft of the tax package of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. We will then know whether the hard decisions are to be made on tax and government expenditure. We will then know whether Australia will sink below the per capita income rates of Singapore in seven years time or whether it will sink below the rates of Korea in 20 years time. We will then know whether governments and their instrumentalities will continue to soak up 43 per cent of our gross domestic product, with taxation taking 36 per cent. This will be the real test of the September announcements. If we cannot stop this public assault on enterprise and the taxpayer and if those of us in the Parliament do not demand growth, profits, prosperity and employment, our future is indeed bleak. I see that the honourable member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe) has left the chamber. He praised the community employment program introduced by this Government. Why then did the Government cut the funding for this program by $138m? The honourable member praised the support that this Government gives to local government. Why then did this Government reduce funds for local government by 7 per cent of the personal income tax sharing arrangements? The August non-Budget was tabled at a time when the competitiveness of Australia agriculture was in rapid decline, against a backdrop of deteriorating world market opportunities and damaging domestic policies. The world market outlook for our traditional agricultural products is not promising while the common agricultural policies in Europe and the support programs in the United States of America defy market demands and create inexhaustible surpluses. The recent report by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics vividly portrays the effects of the CAP. They have cost Australian farmers $1,000m a year in the past five years and have depressed world prices for wheat, course grains, sugar and meat by 9 per cent to 16 per cent and dairy products, in particular butter, by 28 per cent. There is every indication that prices for European Economic Community trade rivals, such as Australia, will get much worse before they get better. While the United States Administration appears to be acknowledging difficulties in its controversial farm Bill there is little acknowledgement by the EEC of the follies of its policies at the expense of taxpayers and consumers. The recent visit by Mr Frans Andriessen, Vice-President of the Commission of European Communities with responsibility for agriculture, did little to allay our concerns. We also have the prospect of a trade war between the United States and the EEC with disastrous side effects on Australian sales of grain, dairy products and other commodities on world markets. Other factors such as the green revolution in Asia and changing eating and living standards, are all contributing factors. However, I am highly critical not only of the failure of governments to deal with internal domestic impediments which are threatening our ability to hold our own as world leaders as an efficient exporting nation, but also of our damaging domestic policies which are placing immense pressures on hard working farmers and their families-I include small business people as well-whose incomes are now less than half of average weekly earnings. The dominance of the family farm unit is now under severe challenge. We have a real battle on our hands. Fewer sons and daughters of farmers are prepared to deny themselves a fair return for hard work as they watch crazy policies that see five and a half million Australians receiving support from government at the expense of four and a half million taxpayers employed in the private sector. The latest surveys have shown that the farm income of family farms averaged $210 in 1982-83, $16,000 in 1983-84 and $12,000 in the current year. A more accurate assessment of income is the farm income per work year of family labour. The figures are $114 in 1982-83, $9,208 in 1983-84 and only $6,598 in 1984-85. It is obvious that we cannot allow these trends to continue. In the past five years, farm costs have risen 44 per cent while farm gate prices have risen by only 12 per cent. The farm income per work year of family labour, as I have already mentioned, is $6,598 while the average wage in Australia is $20,000. The return to capital on the farm is only 1.5 per cent to 2 per cent. In the last seven years, farm indebtedness has grown by 121 per cent. The interest rate on borrowings is now above 17 per cent and high interest rates are being used to prop up a sick dollar that is weak due to a poor export performance and high trade deficit. There is a cost to the average farm of $9,000 for manufacturing tariffs. Mr Slipper —How much? Mr PETER FISHER —The figure is $9,000 a year. Wages and on-farm costs are being passed on to the farm sector, irrespective of its capacity to pay. We have excessive government expenditures and borrowings and a large bureaucracy fulfilling unnecessary regulatory roles, generally distorting market forces. Of course, we also now have the threat of capital taxation and death duties. We already have the assets test and, of course, the excise and taxation on fuel. It is now 10 years since the move towards import parity pricing for fuel. The intellectual and political dishonesty of the debate on the fuel issue, as well as on the tariff issue, in this Parliament does little to enhance the reputation of this chamber. The aim of the policy was to provide incentive for exploration, to reduce oil consumption, to reduce oil imports and to reduce Australia's dependence on unstable supply sources while encouraging the development of alternative energy and technological sources. On all counts this policy has been successful but the ground rules have changed, as they have in the tariff debate, and governments are now using this policy to rip off consumers with large proportions of the crude excise going directly to Consolidated Revenue. Three major changes have occurred to accentuate the effects upon the productive sector, the most significant being the floating of the dollar. This now means that the import parity price is now entirely in the hands of currency speculators around the world rather than reflecting the real price of crude oil. Secondly, the Federal Government has on successive occasions removed the value of excise exemptions for the off-road use of fuel and has introduced automatic six-monthly increases in excise in line with increases in the consumer price index. It has placed a 20 per cent sales tax on previously exempt oils and lubricants used in business and industry while at the same time abolishing special depreciation arrangements for fuel storage on farms. Thirdly, we now cop the almost total abolition of the petroleum fuel freight scheme that was designed to bring some form of equity between city and country consumers. None of these changes was justified. When Labor came to office in 1983, it was with a promise to cut fuel prices by 3c a litre. In his policy speech at the Sydney Opera House on 16 February 1983, the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, said: Labor will reduce the price of petrol by cancelling the January 1 oil price increase of $3.23 per barrel. This will have the effect of reducing the price of petrol by 3c per litre. Of course, that was a lie. In fact, by May 1985- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member should know that that term in the direct sense is unparliamentary. I ask him to withdraw it. Mr PETER FISHER —It was certainly an untruth because by May 1985, or after only 26 months in office, the Government increased petrol prices by over 10c per litre or more than 45c per gallon. Commonwealth excise per litre of petrol or diesel increased by 56.6 per cent in the same period. Today the Government gets 57c for every dollar of fuel purchased. Mr Slipper —The Prime Minister lied. Mr PETER FISHER —He did; he certainly did. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Fisher offends. He heard the Chair admonish the honourable member for Mallee on a particular matter and he has elected vehemently to repeat the offence. I warn him against that behaviour. Mr PETER FISHER —Just the same, I thank the honourable member for his interjection because today the Government gets 57c from every dollar of fuel purchased. Let us not also forget State franchises. Every State, except Queensland, gets into the act, taking some $44m this year. A total of $8.3 billion goes into government coffers with so little of it going into productivity. In fact, only $800m will be spent this year on roads and $16 billion on social welfare. It is, therefore, clear that the Government has no intention of trying to lessen the burden of high fuel prices. What do we do about it? I tell the Government in no uncertain terms that the rural sector will not wear this; it must be changed. We remember that the farming community had only one representative at the taxation summit conference, compared with 27 representatives from the ACTU. But our voice has been strengthened by the unity of farmers, small business people and the total rural community that has developed from this crisis. The rural sector saved the economy of this nation from disintegration in 1974; it is now time to return the compliment. We must push for a concerted effort from all governments to reduce their dependence on fuel as a source of revenue. The National Party of Australia has undertaken a major review of Australia oil pricing policy and has agreed to support the freeing of the market for crude oil and the resultant move away from import parity pricing. We will review well-head taxing arrangements. We will ensure that any cuts in Commonwealth excise are not offset by State tax increases. We will, of course, abolish any indexation of fuel excises and restore the total exemption for off-road use of diesel, as well as developing a new fuel freight equalisation scheme. The rapid increase in interest rates has now overtaken fuel as the major concern in the productive industries. They are a cancer invading the viability of business. We now have the highest real interest rate in 50 years. It is being applied by this Government in an attempt to hold up a deteriorating dollar. Small business and primary production, which over the past two years have taken out loans based on realistic business asessments, now find that the 4 per cent to 5 per cent increase that has taken place in this time threatens to destroy their operations. While interest rates have been increasing in the Australian community, the big operators have been borrowing overseas, increasing our national debt and placing the burden of that debt on all Australian taxpayers. It is obvious that the benefits of currency deregulation are working against small business people who have to work within a totally regulated domestic economy with high penalty rates, high taxation and high interest repayments. Of course, the same can be said of the removal by the Hawke Government of the benefits of the income equalisation deposit scheme. This has seriously disadvantaged primary producers through their lack of capacity now to manage fluctuating incomes resulting from the drought, one of the best seasons on record and another poor income year in 1984-85. The community is saying that enough is enough and this Parliament had better be aware of it. Small business, including the primary industries, employs in excess of 63 per cent of the work force in 820,000 mainly family-owned enterprises. These businesses provide jobs; they give people dignity and hope, not just handouts or short term employment with no training and little prospects. They expect a better deal as, without this sector, there is no hope of decreasing the welfare bill or reducing unemployment. If the Russians sat around our Cabinet table and drew up a list of capitalistic enterprises to get rid of, they would undoubtedly introduce an assets test, a capital gains tax, payroll taxes and workers compensation. These taxes have no relation to profitability but simply penalise anyone who dares to employ people. They are major costs to business and are in urgent need of reform. Of course, penalty rates and the 17 1/2 per cent leave loading must be the eighth wonder of the world. How could any of us be worth more money away from work than at work? This must be one of the most ridiculous costs that could be imposed on any business, particularly on our tourist and hospitality industries. Mr Slipper —Criminal. Mr PETER FISHER —It is criminal, and I seem to recall our Prime Minister saying not so long ago that he would look at penalty rates, but not in the hospitality industry. One wonders what qualifications are needed to become a Rhodes scholar. I believe that many people would like to work 40, 30 or 20 hours outside their normal hours at normal rates, but of course they cannot because the consumer and the taxpayer refuse to pay the bill. Great changes are therefore necessary to Government and Opposition policies and to the general attitude of the Australian community. Farming and small business are the life-blood of Australia and must be recognised. The rural sector cannot be milked further as a source of wealth from which to redirect resources to inefficient manufacturing industries or to uphold unrealistic living standards. A new poor have emerged in this country. These are the declining bands of hard working farmers and small business people and their families whose incomes today are less than half of the average weekly wage. Unless the climate, both economically and socially, is improved for agriculture and small business there will be a massive economic depression in this country. This Budget tells us that our expenditure will drop by $1.4 billion, which sounds good, but it is not quite so good when we see that it will drop from $68.5 billion to $67 billion. I remember that when I entered this Parliament in 1972 the Budget of this country was some $11 billion, which at that time was comparable only to the gross national product of the Boeing company in America, which shows how far we have progressed in public expenditure in some 13 years. It is also not so good when we find that our public sector borrowing requirement over the four years from 1982 to 1986 has been $55 billion, which is one-quarter of our gross domestic product. In that time our public debt has increased by $3,500 per head, which is equivalent to $14,000 for every Australian household. To those genuinely compassionate people who talk of equity, wealth redistribution and an end to privilege, I simply say that when we were truly prosperous at the end of the nineteenth century, when we were the richest country in the world in per capita terms, we were also a world beater in social advances, scientific techniques and farming techniques, and we achieved excellence in places of learning. Of course, we can all demand but if we continue to do so to the disadvantage of enterprise, initiative and skill we will redistribute a higher percentage of the national cake, but it will be a higher percentage of nothing. The writing is on the wall, clear for all to see. It is not too late to arrest the current madness. It will take guts to get the message across by firm, resolute action and economic rationalisation. I support the amendment. Mr ALLAN MORRIS(Newcastle)(10.04) —I convey a message to the National Farmers Federation: Your campaign has been very effective. The National Party is now talking about changing its policies. It is finally getting the message that for many decades it betrayed the bush. The speech by the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher) was directed more at the National Farmers Federation than at the Government and I am sure that the Federation will be delighted with the fear that the National Party is now feeling. In fact, the honourable member for Mallee was part of the Government which created all of the things about which he spoke. The 1985-86 Budget introduced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) is the third Budget by the Hawke Labor Government. Whilst the theme, philosophy and direction of those three Budgets have been common, the climate in which they have been introduced has been very different. There is some value in looking at the climate preceding our first Budget. In seven years the Fraser-Howard Government completely destroyed the credibility and effectiveness of the national budgetary process. Who can forget the then Treasurer, Mr Lynch, admitting that his figures were rubbery and thus setting a trend upon which his successor improved? The honourable member for Bennelong, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), the man who will cut government expenditure, brought down five Budgets. In none of those Budgets did the eventual outlay come within the projected outlay. Five times in a row he had a 100 per cent record-he exceeded his projections every time. I have heard today a lot about the Whitlam Government. Many Australians were not around and were not voting when the Whitlam Government was in power, but the vast majority of current voters were very much around at the time of the Fraser-Howard Government. Let us look at the so-called financial managers and recall the errors in the outlay projections. In 1980-81 it was not too bad; it was out by only $240m which, to the big spenders opposite, is chicken feed. It was better the next year when theoverspending was $463m. In 1982-83 it was the big daddy of them all. The big spenders really got moving and spent $1.9 billion more than was projected. This is the record of the people talking to us about the current Budget and the last two Budgets. Let us look at the Opposition's errors in the deficit in its last two years in government. In 1981-82 it was not too bad-it was out by only almost $500m-compared with 1982-83, when it was out by $2.8 billion. We have heard a lot about money supply and allegations that the Government has run a loose money supply or has ignored money supply. Let us look at the last four Howard Budgets. Not once did the previous Government meet the money supply target. How on earth can the Opposition start talking with any credibility about money supply? The list goes on. The cost of the unemployment benefit is another example. That was a nice little trick-to pretend that there were not so many unemployed. That way it looked as though the previous Government was making things better. The error in the cost projection for unemployment benefit in 1981-82 was only 12 per cent; only out by $200m or so. In 1982-83 it was 44 per cent more than projected. In other words, in August of each of those years the capacity of the government of the day to analyse and predict the cost of unemployment benefit to the Australian economy was out by in excess of 44 per cent. In other words, the expenditure was understated. Government borrowing is a wonderful topic. We have just been hearing about government borrowings. I do not doubt that the people of Australia are aware that from 1976 to 1983 the borrowings of the Fraser-Howard Government doubled-a 100 per cent increase. The Australian public would be interested to know also where the money went, because in theory if a government is borrowing it is investing in the future. The capital works program goes up because the Government is putting money back into the country. What happened to the capital works program? It recorded a real growth of minus 22 per cent, minus 16 per cent, minus 14 per cent and minus 13 per cent. In the 1980-81, for the election, it went up by 2 per cent. Overall there was a massive contraction in government capital programs. In other words, the previous Government took money from its own projects, no longer expanding its ownership. That did not go unnoticed. Let us look at what the headlines were saying. Let us have a few memories. We all know what memories are; they are ways of reminding people what they have been through. In June 1978 the Australian Financial Review headline was `Federal Deficit Blows Out'. Another headline on 2 March 1979 was `Treasurer abandons M3 target'. That was not Mr Keating, that was the honourable member for Bennelong. The honourable member did not take away M3. He said that he could no longer meet the target. He had gone so far over the M3 projections that he wanted to forget about it. Another headline in 1979 was `Deficit overshoots by $746m. In January 1982 the Canberra Times said `Howard Defers Tax Cut'. A month later we had the headline `Deficit $800m over'. A month after that it was `Howard admits $1 billion over-run' and `M3 off-target again'. Later that year we had `Budget deficit soars to $4,000m'. In the Australian in 1979 the headline appeared `Howard admits a major blunder'. He has been doing that for six years. He admitted another one yesterday. How could one man go on admitting so many blunders for so long and still claim some credibility? The fact is the Opposition Leader has made blundering an art form. He is an expert in blundering and the transferring of blame. In the past six months we have seen a laundering exercise-not a laundering of money but a laundering of image. For five years this man was not even close in his most fundamental projections, yet he is purported to be a competent Treasurer. He blamed everbody but himself on many occasions. `Treasury pushy: Howard' was a headline in 1981. Another headline was `Howard blames Reagan'. That was not this week, that was back in 1982. Others included `Howard blames Fraser' and `Howard denies dishonesty'. We are having a wonderful repeat performance. The question before the Australian people today is whether the Third Hawke Labor Government Budget is now a reliable document. Judging by the five Budgets of the previous Treasurer, anything that man puts forward has to be suspect. I can recall honourable members opposite last year saying that an early election was required because the economy would collapse before June 1985. Who can recall that? I am sure all Australians recall it. The Opposition was in favour of an early election because of an imminent economic collapse in the first six months of 1985. As we said then and as we are saying now, this Government knows how to run an economy. The present Treasurer has been the most accurate in his predictions in the last 10 years. The figures show it and the Budget shows it. What did Mr Howard say about interest rates? Let us look at the headlines again. `Treasurer admits some mistakes' and `Interest rates beat us: Howard' appeared in the West Australian in 1982. If honourable members opposite look back at the record they will find their own leader admitting more mistakes, more blunders and more errors than he can ever accuse us of making. Those statements, those headlines and those records of the five Budgets of the previous Treasurer will haunt this Opposition for years to come. Honourable members opposite cannot walk around them. They cannot go out into the community and claim to have some credibility in management of the economy because that claim clearly will not stand up. Those who think the electorate will accept that are insulting the intelligence of the Australian voter. In fact the average voter does understand. The Australian voter also understands what is meant by privatisation and the future. I wonder whether in years to come we will see the Westcom Bank, Saudi Australian Airlines or the Austro-Asian Airways. How about the Budget Post Office? Those are the kinds of things that the average Australian can understand. Who could afford to buy the Commonwealth Bank? Who could afford to buy Qantas, other than Saudi Arabian Airlines? Who can afford the kind of investment that these privatisation programs involve? Under the previous Government we saw Australia being sold. Land was sold at the rate of one per cent a year to overseas buyers. In the next Liberal Government, if it ever occurs, we will see the sale of Australian industry progressing at a much faster pace. During the Liberals' 35 years in office most of Australian industry became foreign owned. This Government will ensure that the major instrumentalities of Australia will remain Australian. Debate interrupted Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(10.15) —I wish to use the occasion of the adjournment tonight to talk about the events of Saturday night, 17 August this year. I remind the House that on that occasion the Australian Broadcasting Corporation organised a stereo simulcast of the Australian Opera production of `A Masked Ball'. These simulcasts are obviously costly to mount but they provide a peak opportunity for our artists and our musicians, who are amongst the best in the world, and our set designers to demonstrate to the Australian public Australia's great achievements in the cultural arts. One does not have to be an opera buff to enjoy the spectacle of the opera on television and the beautiful stereo sound of the excellent ABC FM. That evening the audience settling in for a night's obvious enjoyment were ordinary Australian people whose taxation contributions had made the occasion possible. What happened? A maverick trade union decided quite literally to pull the plug which linked transmission to hundreds of thousands of homes. Television screens simply went blank. The union which performed this disgusting piece of iconoclasm was the Australian Theatrical and Amusement Employees Association. It appears that in order to further beautify the Sydney Opera House, the privileged parking facilities accorded to members of that union will be cut from 380 to 181. This was a grievance far too great to be contained, so we found the unionists hectoring the audience while the ABC, out of respect for its viewers, cut out the transmission of their agitation. After the interval the union delegate tried the same thing. He was slow hand-clapped off the stage and the ABC again sensibly refused to broadcast the union arrogance. Very soon after that the union cut the electricity off from the ABC outside broadcast van unit. The arrogance of that union is not all that much different from that of the union that blacked out Queensland. That is the same union which, when firmly pounced on by the Queensland Government, sent the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Hawke Labor Government into bat for it. Mr Slipper —They were thrashed. Mr MacKELLAR —Yes, they were thrashed on that occasion. But what happened on this occasion? I felt very sorry for the great company of artists who were denied the opportunity to bring their great talents to the attention of the whole of Australia. I also felt sorry for all those people who so rarely have a chance to be treated to such a supreme occasion. This is not the only example of unions associated with the Opera House turning off the lights. On the occasion of the opening of the new Arts Centre in Melbourne they turned off the lights for Joan Sutherland. Dame Joan had to fly out of Melbourne, denied the opportunity to perform at a signally important occasion. I understand that right at this moment the union is having a 48-hour stoppage which has closed the doors of the Sydney Opera House and prevented, amongst other things, the presentation of `Il Trovatore' and an eisteddfod event. Thousands of young children are being denied their opportunity to perform in the Sydney Opera House because of this trade union arrogance. The trade union leadership and the Government should realise that this kind of activity is introducing a very deep bitterness in the community towards the excessive and belligerent use of union power-a power which this Labor Government seems enormously reluctant to question or oppose. It is yet another example of a mean-minded kowtowing to union power which is exhibited by the present Labor Government. These unions appear to live a charmed and apparently protected life and most Australians are heartily sick of the misuse of their privileged relationship with the Labor Government. The fact is that the unionists should have been and could be punished for such a flagrant misuse of their power. Under the Broadcasting and Television Act, section 124A, there is a provision that: A person shall not knowingly prevent, obstruct or otherwise interfere with the broadcasting or televising of programs. Under that provision and the associated penalty provision of the Act, such a breach incurs a $5,000 fine for a person and a $10,000 fine for a body corporate. What has the Government done about this particular issue? What statements have come from the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy)? What effort has been made by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) to get in touch with the Director of Public Prosecutions to find out whether action will be taken against this union for misuse of the powers given to those people under the Broadcasting and Television Act? It is an enormously difficult and disturbing trend when a union takes this disgusting act of blacking out literally hundreds of thousands of television sets throughout Australia and interfering with the normal enjoyment of thousands of fellow Australians. This Labor Government has taken not one single action to bring that union to boot when there is clear provision under section 124A of the Broadcasting and Television Act to have that union brought to heel. The Government owes it not only to itself but to all Australians to take some action in this matter. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(10.21) —The Age on Wednesday 11 September 1985 reported the death of a 22 year old man who died from injuries received the previous Saturday skiing on Mt Buller. Apparently he slipped on an icy slope and fell some 200 metres and fractured his skull. Within my electorate of McEwen are some of the most picturesque and beautiful alpine regions of Victoria. They include Mt Buller, Mr Toobrec, Mt Stirling and, of course, Lake Mountain. They are just some of the few well know alpine areas I am proud to represent. They are becoming very popular for skiing and bushwalking activities. During the winter months Mt Stirling caters for nordic and cross country skiers. Mt Buller is renowned as the premier ski resorts in Australia and has the greatest lift capacity of any Australian ski resort and, in fact, of any mountain resort in the southern hemisphere. During the winter months, and even at other times, these alpine areas experience quite severe blizzards where all sense of perception and direction is totally lost through whiteouts, where the temperature is reduced to minus 10 degrees and, with the wind chill factor even less. Yet there can be no more pleasant an experience than to spend a day above the snow line in brillant winter sun when all around is covered by cloud. Mr McGauran —Are you a skier, Peter? Mr CLEELAND —Yes, I do ski, and I enjoy it very much. In fact the sport of skiing is growing to the extent that on one day in mid-August this year at Mr Buller there were 100 buses and 1,723 cars. That constituted some 9,000 people on a day trip who would be joined by some 5,500 people staying in overnight accommodation at the alpine village. From that the House would get some concept of the number of people who, on single day in the winter seasons, are enjoying the skiing activities on Mt Buller. Adjacent to Mt Buller, and clearly visible, is Mt Stirling. That has been earmarked by the Victorian Government for future development in skiing activity. At the moment Mt Stirling is freely available for bushwalkers and cross-country skiers. The Victorian Alpine Commission has done an excellent job of marking trails throughout the available snow area. In fact, in mid-August this year 30,000 people availed themselves of the facilities on Mt Stirling. My purpose is not to promote the area as the area promotes itself, but I want to draw to the attention of the House that while the apline areas of Australia are beautiful, they are also extremely dangerous. Regretfully there have, to my knowledge, been five tragic deaths in the alpine areas of Australia in the past eight weeks. They highlight the inherent dangers of visiting the high snow country of Australia and certainly that in the electorate of McEwen. At Mt Stirling two young men, aged 18 and 19 years respectively, lost their lives through inexperience. They set off ill-prepared for the fateful journey on nordic skis and on a day when conditions were adverse. We saw the same tragedy played out at Mt Kosciusko. On Mt Bogong an experienced bushwalker plunged to his death when an ice bridge collapsed under his weight. I have already referred to the death of a 22 year old man on Mt Stirling only a short time ago. Apart from the tragedy of death, there is also injury. On a single day at Mt Buller last year a record 38 injuries were recorded, including fractured skulls. I have a very short time left and I could go on for a long time to tell the Government what it should do about this, but I would like particularly to record my appreciation, as a skier and representing many skiers, of the great work of the Victorian Police Search and Rescue Squad, the Victorian Ski Rescue Association and the professional ski patrollers who are employed by the Victorian Alpine Commission. I also mention those who do a great deal of work for the safety of skiers in the nordic and the controllers of the ski lifts on Mt Buller who are willing to provide both their manpower and their track snow vehicles any time to assist skiers in danger. I believe there is a need in Australia today to start a program of education. There have been five tragic deaths in one season in a sport the participation rate of which has increased 100 per cent in eight years. I think this calls for an examination as to how we can educate people on the great dangers which exist in our mountain areas. Five unnecessary deaths have occured. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(10.26) —Two of the Government's agencies, the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission and the former Department of Science and Technology, have recently focused attention on the need to improve the levels of skills and adaptability of the work force by increasing participation in higher education related to technological change, particularly with respect to courses in science, technology, management and business. In so doing, these agencies have recognised that the education and training systems, which provide and nurture the skills and knowledge of our people, are indispensable to economic and social development. Australia's future depends upon the rapid development of these knowledge- intensive industries. The higher education system must provide for the maximum possible numbers in the community, and provide opportunities for people drawn from as wide a cross-section of the community as possible to undertake tertiary education. The Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission has identified as a priority need the provision of expanded tertiary education opportunities in the outer metropolitan areas of our larger cities. Hawkesbury Agricultural College is the only provider of advanced education in the electorate of Macquarie which takes in a significant and rapidly growing part of the outer metropolitan area of Sydney. This 94-year-old college of advanced education has been expanding to meet the community's needs and the Government's expectations. The college now enrols approximately 1,050 equivalent full time students in Commonwealth-funded courses, with a further 100 places in the State-funded nurse training program. The college has grown from approximately 650 students in 1978 to 1,150 in 1985, nearly a 100 per cent growth. This expansion in student numbers has been concentrated in the areas of applied science, technology and business, the very areas that the Commonwealth is looking to the education system to emphasise. Hawkesbury Agricultural College has coped with this growth since 1978 in the complete absence of any government funds for new capital works. How has the college coped? Two strategies have been followed: firstly, old buildings that were no longer needed for their original purpose, for example, food processing factories, old residential dining halls and even woolsheds, have been renovated and turned into teaching space; and secondly, scarce residential accommodation facilities, houses and dormitory buildings, have been taken out of service and turned into teaching spaces and offices. These strategies can no longer continue; all of the old buildings are now being used. In just six years-1991-the college will be celebrating its centenary and many of its buildings and services are now old, inefficient, and in some cases, unsafe. Its major chemistry and microbiology laboratory facilities were built at the same time as this House; they were designed for 200 students, not for the over 600 that now have to be processed through them. A new science building was promised to the college in 1979 and money for the design stage was actually provided and spent. However, no money to build it has been forthcoming. The almost doubling of student numbers that has occurred since 1979 makes it imperative that this project be funded, without further delay. At February 1984 cost levels the building is estimated to cost $2.5m to complete. Hawkesbury's other desperate need is for a modern lecture theatre and computer centre complex. The college has only one large lecture theatre capable of seating 100 students-a size that is increasingly needed as the average class size for lectures approaches this number. The single available large lecture theatre was built in 1895, 90 years ago. It has no modern teaching aids, no air conditioning, and the folding seats are made from canvas. It probably does not meet the requirements of the State Occupational Health and Safety Act. The college's small teaching computer is housed in an old dining hall; the terminal laboratory where students in all courses are able to learn and develop their own ideas using modern computer methods is only large enough to accommodate 10 computer terminals. Most high schools have more computer facilities than this. Hawkesbury Agricultural College provides a valuable resource for the community, particularly that part of the community that lives in the metropolitan fringe areas of Sydney, and I urge that funds in the order of $4.9m be made available to complete its urgent building requirements before the end of the 1985-87 triennium so that a start, at least, can be made on these two buildings in this triennium. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(10.31) —In October last year, when I was Chairman of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, I presented a report to the House on the effects of asbestos mining on the Baryulgil community. The inquiry was sought by the Aboriginal Legal Service, acting for a number of former mine workers and their families from the Aboriginal community at Baryulgil, in northern New South Wales. The terms of reference required the Committee to examine: The manner in which the mine was operated; the extent to which safety procedures were observed; the effects of the operation of the mine on the health of the miners and of the people who lived close by; and, finally, the provisions available to secure just compensation for individuals who had been adversely affected by the mining and processing activities, and the measures necessary to overcome any inadequacies in those provisions. Many of the issues raised were the subject of litigation in the courts. To complicate matters, a number of important witnesses and groups who gave evidence to the Committee were themselves participants in this litigation. As a result, the Committee was placed in the unfortunate position of having to resolve many issues of fact on the basis of speculation, inadequate and disputed information, and hearsay evidence. The Committee was critical of the Aboriginal Legal Service, Hardie Trading (Services) Pty Ltd, and Mr G. Burke, for selectively using documents in their possession to support their evidence. For these reasons, the Committee presented as exhaustive a report as possible in an attempt to resolve the conflicting issues and points of view raised in the inquiry. Broadly speaking, the report concluded that the manner in which the mine and mill were operated at that time resulted in exposure that `was unquestionably excessive by modern standards for miners and in the asbestosis producing range'. The report was critical of James Hardie Industries, the parent company of Asbestos Mines Pty Ltd, and noted that in the period of its ownership until 1970 `Hardies could and should have done more to achieve dust controls at Baryulgil, and to safeguard the health of the work force'. The Committee also criticised both the New South Wales Government's Mines Inspectorate and the State Pollution Control Commission. But, in doing so, we made it quite clear that in our opinion the fundamental responsibility for the safe operation of the mine and the mill rested firmly with the operating company and not the government agencies. On the question of compensation, the Committee commissioned one of its legal advisers to the inquiry, Dr A. S. Merritt, to prepare a detailed analysis of the legal provisions to secure compensation and any deficiencies which might exist. This was included as an appendix to the report. It is an extremely comprehensive and professional analysis. On the basis of Dr Merritt's legal advice, the Committee concluded that the members of the Baryulgil community do not suffer any particular disadvantage from the operation of the law. The report identifies inadequacies in existing legal remedies, but these apply to all prospective claimants throughout the community. The report therefore pointed to a number of legislative steps which could be taken to overcome these inadequacies. But the Committee did not recommend any scheme to make individual compensation payments. I believe that the Committee's report satisfactorily resolved the issues that had been raised. It is a pity, therefore, that attention is still being given to some of the sensational claims made during the inquiry rather than to the Committee's actual findings. In particular, I refer to the public position being expressed by Mr C. Lawrence of the Aboriginal Legal Service. Mr Lawrence, in an interview published in the March 1985 edition of New Doctor, the journal of the New South Wales Doctors Reform Society, stated that he was disappointed at the failure of the Committee to recommend compensation to individuals and to the Baryulgil community. The Committee noted in its report: Representatives of the Aboriginal Legal Service were unable to support many of the wilder claims made both inside and outside the inquiry when pressed by the Committee for evidence to support these claims. It is unfortunate that this has created a public perception of what happened at Baryulgil quite out of keeping with the true facts. I have raised this matter tonight because I believe that the Committee has fulfilled its responsibilities to all parties involved in the inquiry. The Committee's recommendations are now properly in the hands of the Commonwealth Government and the New South Wales Government. I am concerned that credence is still being given to the more sensational and unsubstantiated claims made during the inquiry, which the Committee's report put to rest. I am also concerned that the continued attention being given to these claims will exacerbate the anxiety that exists among the people at Baryulgil over this matter. Mr HICKS(Riverina-Darling)(10.35) —I know that all Australians are proud of the deeds of our soldiers, sailors and airmen, and women, of course, who served us in times of war. Tonight I would like to speak about our First World War veterans. I decided to speak about this because during the Anzac Day services which I have attended in the past, I have noticed, particularly in the towns that I represent, such as Broken Hill, Griffith- Mr Robert Brown —Great cities. Mr HICKS —God bless you. Both cities are great. I have noticed that the number of First World War veterans has diminished. I know that most honourable members who have attended services have noticed this also. I decided to check the figures of those veterans who served in the First World War. I wish to cite some of those figures to the House. Of the 427,400 people who enlisted to serve in World War I, only 6,900 remain alive today. Of this number 5,500 served overseas. When we consider that in 1914 the population of Australia was approximately five million, we can see that that was a tremendous number of people to have served. I think that probably would be the highest ratio of people of any nation who served in the First World War. There was some argument about Newfoundland having a greater ratio, but I believe Australia holds the record. Australia would also have the highest ratio of people killed and injured. The average age of people in Australia who enrolled in that conflict was between 14 and 18 years. At the end of June this year the average age of those veterans was 88 years. The effect of those years on Australia can be seen by the fact that in 1918-I think that was the year-the number of departures from Australia over arrivals was 264,265. So one can see that the war had a tremendous effect on the population of Australia. There were 215,597 casualties. That figure is a little unrealistic because some people were wounded two or three times and put back into the trenches. Yesterday I spoke to a gentleman who said that he had read somewhere that a subaltern in France in the First World War had an average life expectancy of 35 minutes once he got into the trenches. We can see that this was an horrendous war. Australians fought in the Boer War but it was not until Gallipoli that Australia was really placed on the map. Most of the world learned then about Australia. I regard the veterans of the First World War as playing a significant part in the history of Australia and we owe them a great deal. The average age of a veteran now is 88 years. Many of them are in nursing homes and cannot get around. I believe that time is fast running out for most of us to honour these people. They served this country in times of war and also as soldier-settlers. Wherever they served, they served this country very significantly. I raise this matter in the Parliament because I think that members of parliament, in this place and in the State parliaments, and perhaps those in local government, should honour those people more than we have done perhaps in the past. It may be a little late to do so, but I believe that when we go to a public function and a veteran of World War I is there we should recognise the fact that that person is there. Taking the number of veterans State by State, in New South Wales there are 2,400 veterans; in Victoria, 1,800; in Queensland, 1,300; in South Australia, 700; in Western Australia, 500; in Tasmania, 100; and in the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory, 100. That means that the number of veterans is very much depleted. I know that these people would not want any specific honours. I think their honour has been in the fact that they served Australia in the First World War. Today they represent those people who have gone before. I ask honourable members to take note of the figures that I have just given and to provide honours for these people. I know that it is a bit trite of me to say that we should honour them. Mr Slipper —They have served Australia. Mr HICKS —They have certainly served Australia. I think that we should honour them in whatever way and wherever we can by recognition at gatherings in the same way we recognise a town mayor or anyone else. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(10.40) —In recent months the world has been both shocked and stunned by the violence of the assault on black South Africans by the Botha regime. Any pretence of democracy and any semblance of humanity have been stripped away as the world has observed the vicious whipping and shooting of black South Africans and children as young as seven years of age being arrested and herded into gaol. Two years ago, I had the privilege of representing this Parliament at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference in Nairobi in Kenya. As did some other delegates, I took the opportunity before that conference to visit South Africa. I want to make a few observations about some of the things that became apparent to me during that visit. In Johannesburg, for example, I had the opportunity to meet Mrs Shena Duncan, who was the national convenor of the silent protest organisation in South Africa known as the Black Sash. Most of the members of this association are white women who, on occasions when they feel it is warranted, wear their black sashes while in particular locations to indicate in silent protest their concern about some of the developments in that country. Mrs Shena Duncan was occupying a number of rooms in Johannesburg which had been provided for her and her organisation to counsel and advise coloureds and blacks. At the time I visited the centre people were packed into those rooms seeking assistance from Mrs Shena Duncan and other counsellors and advisers who had volunteered their time. I also spoke to a woman who was a member not only of the Black Sash but also of an organisation known as the Detainees Parents Support Committee. She was white as well. Her son had been detained in Johannesburg for six months without trial and without charges. He was an honours graduate of the University of Johannesburg. She was pleased that he had not suffered any physical assault while he was detained, unlike some other people who have been detained in South Africa. The results of a study recently completed by the Institute of Criminology at the University of Cape Town show that many people had been subjected to torture methods of various kinds, including continual beatings and whippings, electric shock treatment, burning of hair or beard, crushing of breasts or genitals, placing of chain manacles around necks and legs and psychological abuse. That woman's son was particularly fortunate. In addition, in Cape Town, I had the opportunity to speak to a representative of the Cape Town Tenants Committee. This man had previously been classified as white. As soon as the authorities discovered that one of his great-great-grandfathers had married a Negro woman, he was reclassified as coloured. He was forcibly evicted from the home that he had occupied in Cape Town in what was classified as a white area. He was subjected to all of the disabilities and the discrimination that are usually suffered by blacks, coloureds and Asians in South Africa. That reclassification was not unusual. In 1984 official reports in South Africa indicated that some of the racial reclassifications were as follows: 518 coloureds became white; 14 whites became coloured; seven Chinese became white; two whites became Chinese; three Malays became white; one white became Indian; 50 Indians became coloureds; 54 coloureds became Indians; 17 Indians became Malays; 26 Malays became Indians; 89 blacks became coloureds; five coloureds became black; one black was put into the `other Asian category'; three blacks became Indians; four coloureds became Chinese; and one Malay became Chinese. If anything more is needed to indicate the abhorrent nature of the regime in South Africa, the offence and inhumanity that it visits upon its citizens and the fact that 70 per cent of the people of South Africa are denied any semblance of any democratic participation in the process of the government of that country, information of that kind highlights it. Such information can be compounded time after time and the world increasingly is becoming aware of the nature of that regime. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(10.45) —I think there is no doubt that we would all agree in this place tonight that there is great turmoil in the meat industry. I want to bring to the attention of the House a situation occurring in Melbourne and Sydney in which I sincerely hope honourable members opposite will take considerable interest. We know about the problems of Mudginberri. We know about the problems of exporting live sheep. The meat workers claim they are protecting their jobs. Today in Melbourne and Sydney the Transport Workers Union of Australia is making an outright attack on the jobs of workers in the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union. About a year ago abattoirs in Victoria and Tasmania established markets in Japan and the Arab Gulf states and they are exporting 100 per cent value-added meat products. I am talking about things such as lamb chops being cryovaced in Australia in works that are fully unionised and working on the tally system. They are going by air freight overnight directly into supermarkets in Japan and the Arab Gulf states. This is a wonderful export opportunity. The products are 100 per cent value-added. In fact, I believe that the product has an average value of about $4,000 a tonne. It has to meet deadlines. It has to go out by plane. It has to be at the destination the next day because it goes straight on to the supermarket shelves. At the moment the Transport Workers Union, for a reason nobody can properly establish, is refusing to handle that product in Melbourne and Sydney and load it on to international aircraft. I think that is a disgrace. The matter should be addressed immediately. It makes a mockery of what has gone on at Mudginberri recently and what has happened in relation to live sheep in the past. I would like to read to the House a telex that came from the Japanese agent today. It is written in English by a Japanese, and I ask the House to take that into account. It states: It is very much regret that we now seeing disastrous setback of the chilled lamb operation which has taken all parties concerned here a hell of a lot of nerve/money/time simply because of a strike whose cause has totally nothing to do with and unbelievable for the consumers in Japan. This whole operation has significant meaning that a producing country for the first time in its meat supply history has been connected directly with house wives/children and all their families through fresh lamb. And for the successful end of the operation the fresh meat has been kept supplied every single week by air with precise program/preparation. We don't have words to express our fury but more its just sad to see a strike originated in a wayback country in the supply country can so easily damage reliability of Australia as meat supply country. We really hope she would produce more meat than strikes. That is a genuine telex from Japan today telling us what the Japanese think of us. We are talking about what one group of trade unionists is doing to another-destroying their jobs. They are good trade unionists working under the tally system in fully unionised abattoirs-two in Victoria and one in Tasmania. We have fools at the airport who do not even know what they are doing. The people at the abattoirs have been begging the union to tell them what is wrong. Because they are all playing God at the Sydney Town Hall, they cannot find out. It is a disgrace. I have another complaining telex from the Gulf states. It reads: Re telecon this evening absolutely disgusted that after one year's hard work in creating markets for Taslamb that you are unable to continue deliveries on schedule. This will weaken position of Taslamb against other commodities EEC beef, NZ lamb, French chickens etc) and we can but restate our disgust that this sort of issue said to be by a third party is interfering with developing Australian exports. Plse do utmost overcome these hurdles + keep product coming at all costs. Advise urgently. The people want our product. It is a good product. It is 100 per cent value-added. It is not a carcass. It is packed ready to go straight on the supermarket shelves. When have we had an opportunity like this and what will honourable members opposite do about it tomorrow morning? Surely there is something they can do in the interests of those workers in those abattoirs. I find it unbelievable that one group of unionists can do that to another group of unionists and not know what they are on about. The industry has only just started and it is getting quite big. There are tonnes of meat waiting to go out on aeroplanes. I do not know what the supermarkets are going to do in those countries. They have to put that meat on their shelves immediately it arrives. It cannot be frozen; it is fresh meat. All those things are wrong. I would like to think that tomorrow morning the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) or someone will stand up and tell the Parliament how that will be fixed. Mr Slipper —Will he? Mr TUCKEY —I do not think he will. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(11.51) —The cowardly attack by the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) in this chamber last night concerning the staff of the Australian Public Service is to be deplored. It reminds me of the attacks made by the former member for Hume, also a member of the National Party, on Public Service staff. This particular member distinguished himself by never having visited an office of the Department of Social Security or a Commonwealth Employment Service office in his electorate, but he would get up in this chamber and attack the staff of those offices. I wonder whether the honourable member for Fisher has ever visited a CES office or a Social Security office in his electorate. Has he ever met with the staff to discuss their problems and to work out ways by which they can both serve the public? I really doubt it. Of course, any member can get up in this chamber and grab a few cheap headlines by attacking the public servants. He showed not only his political bias, but also his ignorance by reference to Labor's Public Service bureaucracy. As we all know, it is not Labor's Public Service but the Australian Public Service. The Public Service in Australia is apolitical. I do not know how the public servants in my electorate of Throsby vote, but I am sure that any in the electorate of Fisher who were misguided enough to vote for the honourable member now must be wondering at the wisdom of their choice. The honourable member for Fisher claimed that the Public Service is unprepared and unable to present a humane approach. What rubbish! I wonder how humane he would be after a day behind a CES counter or indeed a Social Security desk. No doubt at times people are sharp, tired or just plain exhausted. But who is not? In the main public servants are helpful and courteous. Constant misinformed attacks must lower morale. Instead of calling for less staff he should be calling for more so that an even better service can be provided. If the service is not always as humane as the honourable member for Fisher would want, it is because members of the National Party of Australia are always screaming about too much money being spent on welfare. Let me give honourable members an example. A couple of months ago when the now Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), was in a full-throated cry about New Zealanders coming to Australia to rip off our welfare system-claims that were unsubstantiated-a reporter from the Sydney Daily Mirror went to either the Bondi or the Randwick Social Security office late one day. He told a heart-rending story about being kicked out of his flat, with no money, a wife and children to feed and nowhere to stay. To add more colour to it, he actually broke down and wept. The officer behind the counter took a humane approach and some money was advanced. What did the reporter from the Daily Mirror do? How did he write this up? Did he show that in an emergency the Department could respond in a humane way? No. The next day this story appeared about the lack of checking facilities on people applying for money and all these other horrendous things. Can honourable members imagine that if this had been a genuine case, if the money had not been given or if extensive checks had been made how the Daily Mirror would have written it up? People such as the honourable member for Fisher would have come into this chamber-no-one screams louder in this chamber for cuts in welfare than the honourable member for Fisher-and talked about a lack of a humane approach. I have written to the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) on this matter. I have written to the reporter from the Daily Mirror and discussed it with him. I have suggested to the Minister that this reporter be prosecuted for giving misleading information, which he did give. I hope the Minister replies soon informing me that the reporter is to be prosecuted. In the two and a half years I have been a member of this House I have met many public servants. I have always found them a competent, dedicated group of people who often work under trying and very difficult situations. They do their best to carry out government policy, regardless of which party occupies the treasury bench. What would the honourable member for Fisher do about the CES or the Department of Social Security? I suppose that he would privatise them. One would have to pay a fee in order to get a job. Would this provide a better service? The disadvantaged, the long-term unemployed, would not be helped. His mates who wanted to get jobs in the multinational companies, in big business, would be helped, but no-one else would be helped. I suggest that in the next parliamentary break the honourable member for Fisher should visit the CES and Social Security offices in his electorate. After talking to the staff I wonder whether he would make such unwarranted attacks on the Australian Public Service-a service which I believe is a credit to Australia. The public servants in my electorate have my full support. They are a credit to Throsby and to Australia. Mr Slipper —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. There is a proper time for personal explanations to be made. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(10.56) —I do not need to point out to you, Mr Speaker, with your long years of service in both the Victorian and Commonwealth parliaments, the honour of serving as the elected representative of an electorate. With that honour comes great responsibilities, none greater than that of representing all people within the electorate, no matter what their political persuasion or status in life. Whilst I believe that all members of this House adhere to that responsibility, sadly a new bias has become apparent under the Hawke Government. There is a disregard for those living in remote or relatively isolated towns or communities. They are neglected people in a way in which those who live in cities are not. One example from amongst many that will highlight this fact is the disproportionate effect on rural communities caused by the 50 per cent reduction in the participation and equity program. Specifically, I refer to the Sale access program and the East Gippsland access program. Those two programs are within the electorate of Gippsland and the reduction of 50 per cent will severely reduce their ability to function if they do not, despite the best efforts of those involved, close their doors. I turn first to the Sale access program. I advise the House that this is an excellent program which has done much to assist the young unemployed of Sale and the surrounding district. It must be remembered that Sale has no other program for the young unemployed. There is no community youth support scheme, despite efforts that have been made by a great many people over many years. To wipe out the Sale access program is to abrogate the responsibilities we have to the young unemployed in a large regional centre in Gippsland. The Sale access program will attempt to struggle on, even with a 50 per cent reduction. But it is difficult to see how the program will survive in the long term. The second matter I draw to the attention of the House is the East Gippsland access program which, similarly, is facing at least a 50 per cent cut. The great importance of the East Gippsland access program is that it services the remote areas of Buchan, Gelantipy and Mallacoota-those parts of far East Gippsland that governments all too readily forget or, more sadly, deliberately ignore. To reduce funding to those areas is to reduce the only support services available to the young unemployed. My point is that we are all aware of the inefficiencies and, in many cases, inequities of the PEP program, particularly in the larger schools in many of the cities or larger regional centres. In my electorate, in which funds for the young unemployed are so scarce particularly in the remote areas, every cent has been utilised and accounted for. A case can be made out for retaining each program. It is not as though any money has been wasted. It is not as though the programs have not produced concrete results in terms of both building confidence in the young unemployed and giving them new personal skills as well as the skills necessary to obtain employment. It is essential that governments at all times retain the faith of people throughout Australia, particularly those who live in relatively isolated or, more directly, remote areas. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following notices were given- Mr West to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Development of terminal area, Townsville Airport. Mr West to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of a new telephone exchange building for Telecom Australia, Kent Street, Sydney. Mr West to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Melbourne Mail Centre, Spencer and La Trobe Streets, Melbourne. Dr Klugman to move- That this House suggests higher interest rates for depositors in financial institutions and lower interest rates for borrowers. The following paper was deemed to have been presented on 12 September 1985: Lands Acquisition Act-Statement of lands acquired by agreement authorised under sub-section 7 (1).