Tuesday, 17 September 1985 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer the honourable gentleman to his election policy speech on 16 February 1983-- Mr Hollis —A great speech. Mr HOWARD —Just listen very carefully. The Prime Minister said: And here let me make one point so that even our opponents can understand it; and let me make it beyond all their powers of misrepresentation and distortion. There will be no new capital gains tax. I ask the Prime Minister: When will he finally bury this solemn pledge to the Australian public? Mr HAWKE —The Government's tax package will be put to this Parliament within the very near future. The people of Australia will then have the opportunity of testing the position on taxation of this Government against both the record and the frightful indications of future policy of those opposite. One would have thought that this Leader of the Opposition would be extremely timorous about going to this question of tax. Not only honourable members of this House but all of Australia will recall one of his first acts as Treasurer in 1978. He was the instrument of deception and duplicity on the part of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition talked about election promises. Honourable members will remember that those opposite went to the election in 1977-they were part of it-with advertisements placed all around Australia. The advertisements were about the fistful of dollars. They said: `Vote for us and you will get your fistful of dollars'. That is what they promised in the election campaign of 1977. When, through deception and through the fistful of dollars, honourable members opposite got themselves back on to the treasury benchs, what did little Johnny Howard do in his first act as Treasurer? He grabbed the dollars straight back, and he has the temerity to talk about election promises! The Leader of the Opposition and other honourable members opposite have the worst record of broken promises when it comes to tax of any Treasurer and any government in the history of this country. As if that were not enough for them-to grab back the fistful of dollars-they then set about the business of ensuring that the honest, decent taxpayers of this country would have an increasingly heavy burden imposed upon them, as members of the former Government refused to chase the tax avoiders and evaders of this country. That is their record on tax both in elections and in office. When this Government brings down its tax package it will be a package calculated to create a taxation system of fairness, equity and efficiency. It will be infinitely better than anything under which the people of Australia had to suffer when the former Government was in office. Mr LAMB —Is the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware of recent assertions by the Confederation of Australian Industry, and by the Opposition, that labour costs would rise by up to 15 per cent in the next 12 months because of the new agreement with the Australian Council of Trade Unions? Will he comment on the validity of those claims? Mr WILLIS —Yes, I have been made aware of the claims by various people from the Confederation of Australian Industry and from the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party that very large increases in labour costs would emanate from the carrying out of the wages agreement between the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The evidence put forward is that the CAI Council said in its resolution in Brisbane last Friday week that there would be an increase in labour costs of some 10 per cent. The honourable member for Menzies increased that in this House last week to 12 per cent and Mr Williams, the President of the CAI, said on Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio in Melbourne last Friday that it would be 15 per cent. The figure seems to be growing with each estimate. At the rate we are going, it will soon be up to the 17 per cent increase which occurred in the year in which the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party was Minister for Employment, which rate of increase in average weekly earnings was the highest rate that had occurred in this country for 10 years. The factual situation is that as a result of this agreement, if the Commission agrees to accept what will be put forward by the ACTU and the Government, there would be an increase in the case currently before the Commission of 3.8 per cent. Subsequently in the case which will give an increase in April next year there will be an increase of around 2 per cent, because 2 per cent will be discounted from the likely 4 per cent consumer price index figure for the second half of 1985, which will be the basis of the wage increase in April next year. That gives us about a 6 per cent increase for those two national wage increases. There is nothing else, certainly not the superannuation factor, that will occur in this financial year which will add to labour costs. Mr N. A. Brown —What about the on-costs? Mr WILLIS — The honourable member for Menzies said that there would be an increase in superannuation of 3 per cent as a result of the agreement and that all this would apply between now and July next year. That is absolutely untrue. Under the agreement there would be no increase before July next year-no one will get any benefit from the productivity case until July next year-and then that productivity increase outcome would be staggered over the next two financial years, 1986-87 and 1987-88, so that some people will not get a productivity increase until towards the middle of 1988. It is absurd to be floating into this financial year increases in labour costs some of which will not come about for almost three years. One can see the falsehoods involved in that accusation. The honourable member for Menzies also said in this House, and again today by way of interjection, `What about on-costs?' He seems to be constitutionally incapable of wrapping his mind around the fact that if there is an increase in wages of 3 per cent and if there is a fixed relationship between on-costs and wages, labour costs go up by only 3 per cent. If there is a 6 per cent increase in wages, one does not add on 3 per cent because on-costs are half of wages to get an increase of 9 per cent in labour costs. If there is that fixed relationship, wages go up by 6 per cent and total labour costs go up by 6 per cent. That is the reality. The fact that the honourable member for Menzies is constitutionally incapable of understanding that reflects adversely on his capacity to talk in this House in any way sensibly about wages. The Budget forecast for average weekly earnings was for growth of 8 per cent. That assumed there was no discounting. This was made clear at the time the Budget was brought down. It was also made clear at that time that we would be seeking some discounting. As a result of what has been achieved with the discounting to come in April it is quite clear that the increase in average weekly earnings will be less than 8 per cent. The claims that are being made by the Opposition and by the CAI about high increases in labour costs coming from the agreement between the Government and the ACTU are quite false. It is quite clear that as a result of that agreement the labour cost increase this year will be less than 8 per cent and that that increase in labour costs will enable this Government to cope extremely satisfactorily with the adjustment to wages policy required by the very large devaluation of our dollar which we have suffered. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask the Prime Minister whether he recalls his advice to the Australian community that the rejection of option C at the National Taxation Summit was because it lacked community support. Has he now rejected that criterion? If not, why does his Treasurer's present package include a new capital gains tax in light of the very widespread community opposition to it? Mr HAWKE —Not only the honourable gentleman who has asked this question but the whole of this House will have the opportunity of dealing not with speculation but with a factual situation which is contained in the Government's tax package when it is brought down by the Treasurer. I repeat what I have said. We are confident that when that package is brought down, analysed and discussed the people of Australia will infinitely prefer that approach to either that which has already been imposed upon them by those in the Opposition, when they were in government, or that which they may come up with when they have sorted out the deep divisions in their own ranks on this issue. Mr Howard —Ha, ha! Mr HAWKE —The Leader of the Opposition laughs. I suggest for a start that if he has time in between teaching some basic economics to his shadow Treasurer-that is a full time occupation, let us face it-he spends it with the shadow Treasurer on the question of identification cards. The Leader of the Opposition has said that he thinks it is a sound idea, but his shadow Treasurer thinks it is the worst thing that could ever be done. The issue of identification cards goes to the question of tax avoidance. I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition sort out the fundamental difference of opinion that he has with his shadow Treasurer. If he has any time after he has finished doing that he may constructively be able to examine the package which will be brought before this House because, I repeat-- Mr Howard —When? Mr HAWKE —It will be brought down in the very near future. Mr Howard —This week? Mr HAWKE —I believe it will be this week, yes. When it is brought down honourable members will have the opportunity of analysing that tax package in full. It is one that will be acceptable to the people of Australia. Mr SIMMONS —Has the attention of the Minister for Primary Industry been drawn to a position paper by the former leader of the National Party of Australia, Doug Anthony, entitled `The Hand that feeds Needs to be Fed', dated 11 September 1985? Does he agree with Mr Anthony's view that some farm leaders have a `pussy-footing attitude' when seeking government assistance for agriculture or that `pigs are likely to fly'-- Mr Donald Cameron —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. As I understand Standing Orders, the Minister is not responsible for the views of somebody who is not even in the Parliament, let alone somebody-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The question is relevant to the Minister's administration. Mr SIMMONS —Does the Minister agree with Mr Anthony's view that some farm leaders have `a pussy-footing attitude' when seeking government assistance for agriculture or that `pigs are likely to fly' before purist policies of the open market and free trade are achievable' or-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Calare must get to his question. Mr SIMMONS —Is this further evidence of the continuing souring in the relationship between the National Party and the National Farmers Federation? Mr Donald Cameron —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to the House's Standing Orders. Even the most liberal interpretation of those Standing Orders would not allow you to permit that question. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The question is in order. I am aware of the Standing Orders. Mr Donald Cameron —It is back in the political-- Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for Moreton will cease reflecting on the Chair. If he does it again, I will name him. Mr KERIN —Not only have I seen Mr Anthony's position in the newspaper, but I have seen the article which appeared in last Friday's Sydney Morning Herald. That would put the claims by the honourable member for Moreton to rest. As the Prime Minister was saying a while ago, there are deep divisions within the parties opposite. What Mr Anthony said is not all wrong. After all, he was here for a very long time. He must have learnt something, although I have often wondered. Now that he has retired, he is one of the gurus of the National Party of Australia. He is one of its intellectual resources. The answer to the honourable gentleman's question is yes, it is certainly an attack on the National Farmers Federation. More fundament- ally, it reflects the great divisions between the right wing of the Liberal Party-that is, the anti-Fraser pro-apartheid wing-and the left wing of the Liberal Party, which is basically soggy. Between those two wings of the Liberal Party we have the good old National Party, which is neither soggy nor anything else. It is simply confused. Let us look at some of the things that Mr Anthony said. He said: The pussy-footing attitude that I hear from some farm leaders about not wanting Government supports or subsidies is a form of ignorant pride. Such misguided behaviour verges on the edge of betraying the very people they represent. Mr Anthony was attacking the NFF line. He said: Preaching purist economic policies . . . So he was attacking the right wing of the Liberal Party. Then he said: I shake my head in despair when I hear some academics, politicians and farm leaders pontificating the virtues of macro economics as a cure for the ills of our export industries. What does cockies corner say to that? He continued: These purist policies of open market concept and free trade would be fine . . . That says goodbye to the honourable member for Bennelong, the honourable member for Mackellar, the honourable member for Menzies and to the honourable member for Deakin, who wants to wipe out bounties, local government grants, public housing grants, to reduce the tax sharing for the States and to tax family allowances. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The relevance of answers is often hard to define, but the Minister is getting rather wide. Mr KERIN —Let me get back to Mr Anthony's statement and the divisions within the Liberal Party and divisions between the Liberal Party and the National Party. Mr Anthony continued: To acknowledge a need for subsidy support does not mean handing out public funds willy-nilly. What he was saying was that he is in favour of subsidies. How many members of the Liberal Party now say that they are in favour of subsidies? They do not like talking about that. Mr Anthony then reflected on the great hypocrisy of the Opposition parties. They always want a lower deficit, `but not for us'. That is what Mr Anthony said. I do not think he learnt anything in the whole time that he was in this place. He did not learn that subsidies capitalise into land values. Let us look at another of his statements. He said: Farm leaders are running about making gutteral noises at both Government and Opposition . . . This is most revealing. Mr Anthony would know all about guttural noises. Mr Anthony would know all about farm leaders running around making guttural noises. They are sort of pig-like noises. He would know all about pig-like noises. Mr Hodgman —I take a point of order under standing order 142, which states: Questions may be put to a Minister relating to public affairs with which he is officially connected, to proceedings pending in the House, or to any matter of administration for which he is responsible. I submit that the answer given by the Minister does not fall within standing order 142. He ought to be ruled out of order. Mr KERIN —The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism does not like the word `guttural' for pigs. He says they make nice noises. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Minister to respect the mood of the House and to get back to the question before it instead of provoking interjections. Mr KERIN —I will just finish with the final quote: There is no section of rural industry in Australia that has not in the past benefitted from some form of government help. It is a long time since our graziers could claim that they were clean skins as far as government help was concerned. All I can say about that is that Mr Ian McLachlan would be stunned. Mr CARLTON —I refer the Treasurer to his statement on the Eleven AM program on 4 June 1985 when he said: This is the most comprehensive and sensible and closely reasoned package on tax reform ever produced. . . . If we don't as a nation adopt this proposal then you won't see significant reform in this country in taxation for the balance of this century. I ask the honourable gentleman which reform package he was referring to. Was it option C, abandoned at the tax summit? Was it the scaled down indirect tax package abandoned by him on 13 August? Was it the tax package he took to Cabinet last week, or is it the package which emerged from the Caucus this morning? Mr KEATING —These are the antics of the new dry Liberal Party of Australia which has given us the promise that it will sit and evaluate what the Government does: If the Opposition approves of what the Government does, it will say so; if it disapproves of what the Government does, the Opposition will put an alternative. These are the pious words of the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong, when he was elected Leader. The truth of the matter is that for two days-during a discussion of a matter of public importance yesterday in a hare-brained proposition from the honourable member for Mackellar and in a similar piece of tomfoolery today from the honourable member for Bennelong-Opposition members have been indicating that they will get right up to their necks in foul play on tax reform at every opportunity. Members of the Opposition are really saying that they will go back to scaremongering and abuse. They will go back to the old tax reform blackmail. They will go back to all of these things. The fact that this Government ran the gamut of an election campaign without closing options off in the face of the rank and naked opportunism of honourable members opposite does not cut any ice with them. The fact that we stand here with a mandate to change the tax system, refusing to close off options, has resulted in the sort of opportunistic language engaged in by the Leader of the Opposition in the election campaign. The Government has a mandate and it will introduce tax reform. The honourable member for Mackellar referred to the remarks I made in June. Of course I would have preferred to see option C up. I have argued that and I will say it again. However, the Government has always said that it needed broad community support. With the 6 1/2 per cent increase in the consumer price index, it required also a major discount to the wage system, a discount which the Opposition would be incapable of getting because, firstly, it does not believe in centralised wage fixing so there would be no system to get it and, secondly, the Opposition would not bother trying to get a reduction anyway so action would be taken in the market-place. The fact of the matter is that without that discount there would be no certainty that inflation could be contained. For those reasons the Government was not able to secure the passage of option C. That does not mean to say that it is going to allow the benign neglect of the former Treasurer's handiwork for five years in the direct side of the tax system to lay untouched, that all the ramps and rorts should remain there so that it can gloss over all of the things the Opposition did to make a swill of the tax system over the last 30 years by agreeing to every industry pressure for concessions, which the Opposition gave year in and year out, and which in the absence of the paper schemes now are being used by taxpayers to minimise their income. So my reference on that program to a need for tax reform also referred to direct side changes. It referred to the very important package of changes on the direct side of the system. When honourable members see the Government's statement-- Mr Howard —This year? Mr KEATING —They will see that it is the largest and most significant tax reform in this country's living memory. It may not be as large as option C but it will certainly be far larger than any reform introduced so far. With respect to the smart Alick comment from the Leader of the Opposition, he had five years in which to clean up the tax system. He failed on every occasion. He took back the one tax cut his Party offered. In those five years, all the current Leader of the Opposition did was turn his back on the most disgraceful history of tax administration in this country's memory. He had to come in here and attack the McCabe-Lafranchi report as a political stunt, the Costigan report and all the rest. So honourable members opposite should not ask us about tax reform. If they think they can mount an attack on us on their usual basis of electoral opportunism, they are welcome to try but this time the great honest majority-I underline those words: The honest majority as distinct from those with honest reputations-will slap them right in the mouth with their rhetoric. Mr WRIGHT —Is the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism aware of the considerable controversy surrounding the deletion of the tourist industry from the export market development grants scheme? How does the Minister respond to the complaints of the industry? What initiatives does he intend to take or implement to compensate the industry for its deletion from the EMDG scheme? Mr JOHN BROWN —I thank the honourable member for his question. He is very much aware of the importance of tourism to his electorate and to Queensland as a whole, and I think he is just as disturbed as I am about some of the rumours that have been circulating. Of course, there was a considerable amount of Press coverage surrounding changes to the application of the EMDG scheme in relation to tourism-rumours, I might add, that were fuelled by the mischievous and very stupid Press releases put out by the former Opposition spokesman on tourist affairs. Thank God he has been moved. Let me say from the outset that the tourist industry never sat well with the old EMDG scheme. I was aware of that fact. The industry had pointed it out to me on many occasions. Tourism is a wide and very diverse industry that has very little relationship to the usual array of manufacturing and other export industries that were covered by the old EMDG scheme. There was need for reform, and it has arrived. In announcing changes to the EMDG scheme in the May Budget statement, the Minister for Trade noted that I would be bringing forward to the Cabinet suggestions about a special scheme that would produce direct assistance to the tourism export industry. Mr Sinclair —When? Mr JOHN BROWN —I have information for the Leader of the National Party. The scheme which covered the industry up to 19 May will continue, and every commitment will be honoured under that scheme, until this new scheme is introduced in a very short time. I will be very happy to announce full details of the new scheme in a matter of weeks. A total of $5m was allocated in this year's Budget for the tourism overseas promotion scheme, known as TOPS. It is an incentive promotion scheme tailor-made to suit the industry's needs. The new TOPS scheme will have many advantages over the old scheme. First of all there will be a prior validity test so that anybody who wants to enter into a scheme will have to establish the bona fides of his market proposition before he is allowed to enter. This will have the effect of removing many of the shonky people who were in this scheme in the past, who achieved an enormous amount of revenue from it and never produced one success on the export market. This scheme will more directly assist those who are capable of producing results. Tourism operators will now be able to plan their marketing strategies safe in the knowledge that their expenditure falls within the guidelines of the new scheme. There will be no doubt about that. Another major improvement in the new scheme will be the prompt payment of rebates. In the past, recipients who qualified had to wait anything up to 18 months to be paid. That will not happen in this scheme. It will be a much more efficient scheme. The validity test not only will circumvent the process but also will mean a more co-ordinated national promotional effort. I think that is what everybody with an interest in tourism wants. Whatever promotion is available, from whatever source, will be co-ordinated to achieve the result we want. The previous Opposition spokesman on tourism made great play in the Press and in the tourism industry magazines regarding alleged bureaucratic control of the new scheme. I have news for him: The new scheme will largely be controlled by the Australian Tourist Commission which of course is made up of people with expertise and experience in the private sector of tourism. The claims that this will be a bureaucratic nightmare are absolutely wrong. Mr Tuckey —We have been waiting for four months. Mr JOHN BROWN —The honourable member will not have to wait much longer because in the next week or two he will get the full details. All I can say in conclusion is that this Government's concern and support for the tourism industry are clearly on the boards. After all their years in government honourable members opposite have failed to realise that tourism is the biggest industry we own. They did nothing whatever to try to promote it. Our support is on the boards for everybody to see. Anybody who questions that we have made any effort at all to provide export incentive for the tourism industry is on the wrong track. As I said, every commitment entered into before 19 May, or since then, will be honoured. The full details of the new scheme will be announced in the next week or two. The industry then will note the mischievous attempts of the former Opposition spokesman for tourism to indicate that this Government was withdrawing its support from the industry for what they always are-fairly empty rhetoric. Mr CONNOLLY —I ask the Prime Minister: Did the Chairman of the Australian Bicentennial Authority, Mr John Reid, make known to him the detailed elements of the proposed settlement relating to Dr Armstrong in the course of requesting his approval for the expenditure of funds involved? If so, why did he say in his Press statement of 11 September that the negotiations on the terms of settlement of departure were entirely-I emphasise the word `entirely'-a matter between the Chairman, Mr Reid, and Dr Armstrong? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the honourable member for his question. I will attempt, for reasons which I think the Leader of the Opposition understands, to answer this question in the lowest possible key that I can, because I trust and believe that the Opposition, as well as this Government, wants to ensure that the preparations for the Australian bicentenary in 1988 should continue to be conducted in a bipartisan fashion. I do not want anything that has happened before, or which happens in the period between now and 1988, to disrupt that. Having said that, let me make it quite clear that the legal position is that the Australian Bicentennial Authority is a private company established under the legislation passed by our predecessors when they were in government. It was the then Government's deliberate decision to establish the ABA as a private company. In section 41 of the memorandum and articles of association of the ABA it is stated that the authority to settle payments on resignation lies with the Chairman and with the Directors of the ABA, provided such payment is made within the general allocation to the Authority of government funds. I have had several discussions with Mr Reid, the Chairman of the ABA about criticisms of the ABA and of its plans for the 1988 celebrations. Following the discussions I have had with Mr Reid, Mr Reid and Dr Armstrong concluded that the interests of the ABA would be best served if Dr Armstrong were to leave the Authority's services. The negotiations of the terms of settlement of that departure took place entirely between the ABA Chairman and Dr Armstrong and their respective solicitors on the basis of Dr Armstrong's original contract. Following those negotiations Mr Reid advised me of the outcome and sought my approval. In a written reply to him of 30 August I explained the legal position regarding authority for the settlement, as I described earlier. While I was therefore aware of the proposed terms of settlement I was not involved in the negotiations; nor could I give the formal approval for the settlement. That is precisely what I conveyed and what I intended to convey in the Press release of 11 September. Having made that clear, I say this: The Opposition must make a choice on this matter. The Government does not want to see a political dog-fight over the bicentennial celebrations which we wish to ensure will be enjoyed by all Australians and enjoyed in a way of which we can all be proud in 1988. I make the point that this issue arose on the morning of 11 September. I left the matter until after Question Time in case there was any attempt to ask a question on this issue, because I did not wish in any way to compromise the Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition itself. Following the lack of any question on that day, 11 September, I took the opportunity of discussing this issue and related issues with the Leader of the Opposition. As is proper, I do not go to the details of that conversation other than to say that-it is appropriate that I should say this-in the discussions I had with the Leader of the Opposition I gave him the opportunity of seeing a copy of the letter that had been sent by the solicitors of the ABA, Allen Allen and Hemsley, to Mr Reid which indicated their endorsement of the appropriateness of the terms of settlement. The only other thing I will go to in the conversation I had with the Leader of the Opposition is this: I repeated to him what I have said in this House-it is the desire of the Government that the preparation of and the celebration of the bicentennial should not become a political issue. I believe he endorses that completely. I went further to indicate to the Leader of the Opposition that, now that the Bicentennial Authority, the private company, had undertaken, as it had to do under the law, the advertising for a new Chief Executive, I had said to the Chairman of the Bicentennial Authority that as Prime Minister and Leader of the Government I wanted to have a degree of involvement from the Government's point of view, in who was appointed to that position. I said to the Leader of the Opposition that I was more than happy to consult with him. I make it clear here that I would wish to consult with him, so that when the replacement for Dr Armstrong is made it is an appointment which has bipartisan support in this House. I believe it is appropriate that this be done so that there will be no opportunity of allowing the conduct of the ABA's affairs to degenerate into a political dog-fight. Finally, I say this: If the Opposition is now saying, regarding the way in which the ABA is run, that it believes the ABA should be put on the same legal basis as a statutory authority with greater government control over the running of that authority, that it, as government in 1980, made a mistake in the way it set up this issue under the law, and that if it wants to change to a different situation where the Government would have control, then let it say so. If that is what it wants we will be prepared to consider the matter. Mr Spender —I raise a point of order. The Prime Minister was clearly quoting from a document during part of his answer. I ask that that document be tabled. Mr SPEAKER —Was the Prime Minister quoting from a document on public affairs? Mr HAWKE —I was referring to notes, Mr Speaker. Mr Connolly —I raise a point of order. Will the Prime Minister kindly table the letter to which he referred in his answer to the question? Mr HAWKE —The letter from Allen Allen and Hemsley? Mr Connolly —No; the letter between the Prime Minister and Mr Reid confirming the terms of the agreement on Dr Armstrong. Mr HAWKE —I notice that the Leader of the Opposition is sitting mute in this matter. I repeat to the Leader of the Opposition what I said. I am certainly prepared to show the Leader of the Opposition the letter, as I showed him the letter from Allen Allen and Hemsley which confirmed the appropriateness of the decision that was made in this matter. I will show him the letter. I have nothing at all to hide. I am more than willing to show the Leader of the Opposition that letter. Let us get rid of this mealy-mouthed way of doing things that is going on on the other side. I have dealt honourably with the Leader of the Opposition in this matter. I will show him, without any unhappiness at all, the correspondence to which I have referred. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The request from the honourable member for Bradfield was for a tabling. I take it that the Prime Minister has said that he will not table the letter but prefers to deal with it in another way. Mr SCOTT —I refer the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the Government's commitment to establish a peace research centre in Australia. Can the Minister advise of the progress towards meeting that commitment? Further, will the Minister advise the House of the nature of the studies and the research expected from a peace research centre in Australia? Mr HAYDEN —The Peace Research Centre has been established at the Australian National University as part of the Research School of Pacific Studies. Mr Andrew Mack has been appointed senior research fellow and head of the Centre for three years initially with the possibility of extention to five or seven years. The interim advisory committee for the Centre is currently considering the appointment of other staff, including a post-doctoral fellow, a research fellow and visiting fellows. Two visiting fellowships have already been offered to Ms Randall Rorsberg of the Institute for Defence and Disarmament Studies, Brooklin, Massachusetts, and Mr Svenne Lodgard of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute in Sweden. The Peace Research Centre has been established to carry out high quality research on topics relating to the conditions for establishing and maintaining peace at the national, regional and global level and to provide training in these fields. Final definition of major research fields has yet to be made. The interim advisory committee considers that work may be done in the following fields, although this list, of course, is indicative, not exclusive: The sources of national, regional and global conflict, including their social, political, economic and cultural aspects; perspectives on the arms race; alternative approaches to defence and security; means of conflict resolution, including the contribution of legal and institutional settlement procedures; arms limitation and disarmament in all their aspects; cultural, moral and philosophical dimensions of militarism and how to combat it; and the role of justice, equity and human rights in the promotion of peace. Finally, I seem to recall that Mr Andrew Mack gave distinguished service as a member of the armed forces in the Royal Air Force for several years. I seem to recall that he served at the same time as the honourable member who asked the question. Mr HOWARD —Does the Treasurer recall telling a campaign meeting in Brisbane on 29 November last year on the eve of the last Federal election that there was no certainty that a capital gains tax would raise significant revenue or that it would have any beneficial effects? Does that still represent the attitude of the Government? If not, why not? Mr KEATING —The honourable gentleman will have to contain himself and wait to see what the Government has to say about capital gains taxation and everything else. I have always believed that in equity there was a case for a capital gains tax in this country. However, I always argued to my Party before an election that it could never win an election with the harlots on the other side chasing it down every hole on the question of capital gains tax. Mr Howard —That is not what you told the New South Wales Conference of the ALP. Give him a bit of instruction, Bob. Get your folder out. Mr KEATING —Well, he has an interesting note about the honourable gentleman on capital gains. That note says that at the National Press Club on 29 August this year the honourable gentleman was asked a question as to whether, as part of any restructuring of the tax system, there was room for an effective capital gains tax. The honourable member said: I think I was asked at the last National Press Club luncheon the same question by Max Walsh and I said then that there are arguments within a total restructuring of the system for what you have said. In other words, the Leader of the Opposition believes in one. We all know that he believes in one. But he will do the usual Liberal Party number in regard to tax reform. He will market himself as a man of decency, but he will be totally indecent at the first opportunity. No doubt he is girding the loins and getting ready to jump out of the box at the moment the statement has been delivered, and do all the things that he alleged the former Leader of the Opposition was doing when he said that he was doing badly by the Party in taking an opportunist position on things. The present leader will obviously do that himself. The matter of public importance which he has proposed should be discussed later today is an indication of that point. I have never believed that a lot of revenue would be gained from a capital gains tax in this country. Of course, the revenue yield appears in the income tax system by putting a net under the income tax system. That has always been the case. With regard to the details on any decision by the Government in this area, the former Treasurer will have to wait until the government makes an announcement. No amount of parliamentary shenanigans by him will get the Government to reveal parts of the statement before it is good and ready to do so. Mr Steele Hall —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. I ask that the Treasurer table the document from which he clearly read and quoted. Mr SPEAKER —Was the Treasurer quoting from a document on public affairs? Mr Keating —I am sure that the Prime Minister will let me have the page from his notes, if the honourable member really requires it. Does he really need it? Mr Steele Hall —I would like the whole of the document tabled. Mr Keating —No wonder the honourable member is on the back bench. I table it. Mr STAPLES —My question is directed to the inimitable Minister for Science. Is it a fact, as was asserted on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation television program Four Corners last night, that the computer assisted disaster management system project of Mr Andrew Helps-it is known as CADMAS-has been rejected because of bureaucratic decision-making and a reluctance to cut through red tape? Mr BARRY JONES —The short answer is no. As was explained at greater length on the program, and at even greater length in material in the interview which was not shown on the program-- Mr Hawke —Did someone cut you? Mr BARRY JONES —Very painfully. CADMAS, unfortunately, is not an invention in the conventional sense as covered by the industrial research and development incentives scheme. That point would be well known to the honourable member for Goldstein. It is a computerised information system involving personal collection and dispersal of data to enhance community safety in bushfire prone areas. As such, it has very considerable social merit. In fact, it has been rejected, not by bureaucrats, as the ABC program repeatedly stated, but by two independent boards set up under the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act. Not only are the members of those boards independent and appointed because of their personal qualities; they are not bureaucrats. On top of that, of course, they may not be directed by the Minister. The Act makes it quite explicit that they may not be directed. As has been made clear to Mr Helps, there are certain isolated elements in the CADMAS scheme which could attract industrial research and development funding. It has been suggested to him that proponents of those elements should make applications. Mr Helps has insisted that the thing should be treated as an entirety. As the principal proponent, he is not eligible under the Act. It has been suggested to him that it would be more appropriate for him to go to the Australian Industry Development Corporation. He has done so and that matter is now under consideration by the AIDC. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 171 of the Trade Practices Act 1974, I present the Trade Practices Commission annual report for 1984-85. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report by the Commonwealth Legal Aid Council on the legal needs of institutionalised people. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer) —Pursuant to section 24 (1) of the Australian Bureau of Statistics Act 1975, I present the Australian Bureau of Statistics annual report for 1984-85. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer) —Pursuant to section 24 (2) of the Australian Bureau of Statistics Act 1975, I present the Australian Statistics Advisory Council annual report for 1984-85. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —Pursuant to section 53 (3) of the Overseas Telecommunications Act 1946, I present the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) annual report and financial statements for 1984-85. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion be Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence) —by leave-At this time of the year it is customary for the Minister for Defence after the Budget to announce the budgetary impact on his portfolio and also to point to several directions of the government defence policy. In those circumstances, this is a slightly shorter statement than normal in that, in the light of the review we have under way and about which I have already informed the House concerning Mr Dibb, there will be a requirement for a more substantial statement-probably, indeed, a White Paper-early in the new year. Nevertheless, I thought it useful to continue the practice of making a statement at this time. I thank the Opposition for its indulgence in permitting me to do so. The Labor Government is building Australia's self-reliant defence and a Defence Force structured for, and committed to, the protection of this country and its interests. To this end, despite the economic constraints faced by the Government, we have yet again provided a significant real increase in defence spending. In our three Budgets we have raised defence outlay by an average of 3.3 per cent a year. This Government has brought reality and stability to the financial guidance for defence planning and has closely maintained that guidance in actual defence allocations. Compare this with the efforts of the previous Administration. In sharp contrast to its promises of 6 to 7 per cent real growth per annum, it averaged over a seven-year period only 2.5 per cent. In its last full year in office it presided over a real decrease of 1.7 per cent in defence spending-a real decrease. But equally let me stress that whilst a powerful indicator, the amount of money a government dedicates to defence is not the sole measure of its capacity to perceive real defence needs and to implement them. The plain fact is that the conservative parties have consistently adopted increasingly irrelevant defence policies by being content to rely on others, despite the clear realities of successive strategic assessments. Let us get it clear that it is the Labor Government that is taking the initiative in the defence field. We are committed to giving Australia the ability to defend itself and to encouraging the development of a professional, independent, highly competent and well-equipped defence force. The provision for defence in this year's Budget is $6,535m, an increase of 10 per cent on that of 1984-85 and an underlying real growth of 3.1 per cent. I will return to discuss the allocation of Budget funds in some detail, but let me here highlight some of the major provisions to illustrate the Government's determination to provide Australia with an overall defence capability commensurate with our needs. Defence personnel costs amount to $2,823m and remain the largest item in the outlay. This represents an increase of 3.8 per cent. A further provision of $162m for contingent personnel costs has been made. The provision for defence equipment is increased by 9.8 per cent to $1772m. Defence capital facilities expenditure is up by 16 per cent to $314m and operating costs will total $1715m, up $133m or 8.4 per cent on last year. The outlay for defence industrial capacity is programmed at $334m, slightly down on the same function last year, reflecting near completion of the major investment program associated with the F/A-18 Hornet, savings from rationalisation of responsibilities and continuing efforts to reduce the unrecovered costs of retention of facilities. The Defence budget maintains the steady growth necessary to provide for a more self-reliant defence posture, which our predecessors in government, during the scant consideration they gave to the security of this country, did not comprehend. Let us look at history. As far back as 1959 the strategic basis paper concluded that Australia's armed forces `should be designed primarily with the ability to act independently of allies'. But the coalition parties did heed this advice. They were tied to the traditions of the past-reliance on great and powerful friends. Hence, the Australian armed forces were deliberately organised and equipped primarily to operate as but part of a larger allied overseas force. It was not until the advent of the Whitlam Labor Government 13 years later that the process of building a defence force appropriate to this country's needs commenced: Events such as the British withdrawal east of Suez, the adoption of the Guam doctrine by the United States of America, and the decolonization of most of the Third World, reinforced the necessity of doing so. The three Service departments were combined in a single defence department and the new emphasis on the defence of Australia was embodied in defence thinking. However, the adoption of the principle that the structure of the Australian Defence Force should be determined by the requirements of self-reliant national defence did not bring into being a Defence Force so structured because of the lacklustre performance of the coalition between 1976 and 1983. This Government is developing a Defence Force with capabilities relevant to a greater self-reliant defence of Australia, while at the same time fully appreciating the importance to our security of effective relations with our regional neighbours and with our traditional friends. In our area of primary strategic interest a range of co-operative defence activities has been developed with Association of South East Asian Nations members and with countries in the South Pacific. These bilateral programs help promote a shared strategic outlook and enhance the security of our region. My recent visit to the United States provided me with an opportunity to demonstrate to policy makers in that country that our move towards a self-reliant defence policy and our commitment to the ANZUS alliance are mutually supporting. However, because we will not adopt the approach of the coalition parties, it does not distort our defence priorities. On the contrary, the alliance relationship contributes substantially to our security. In terms of general strategic perspectives the alliance advances some important Australian policy goals as well as reflecting shared perspectives which are, nevertheless, the outcome of independently determined policy stances. More directly, the alliance does assist the development of defence self-reliance. What the alliance relationship in fact does, on a day to day basis, is substantially to advance our technical capabilities and our understanding of events in our area of strategic concern. Partly as a result of the latter contribution it also enables us to limit the cost of our insurance. Without it, our defence budget would become the victim of a shopping list of requirements to deal with worst-case scenarios. The technical improvements assist in ensuring the ability to secure and sustain a technological solution for the problems posed by our strategic geography. I have spoken of the issues and factors which underpin the Government's defence policy. Let me now turn to the initiatives we are taking on the central question of force structure and capability. Much of our present force structure has its origins in the equipment buying of the Menzies Government, when it was faced with confrontation and Vietnam. Most of that equipment is approaching the end of its operational life. Equipment costs are increasing at a rate far in advance of inflation. These circumstances demand that the Government be discriminating in those defence capabilities it chooses to maintain and develop. We are concerned to ensure that important defence judgments are based on as solid a foundation as is possible. We want to make sure Australian taxpayers get the best value for their defence dollar. To this end Mr Paul Dibb from the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University was appointed at the beginning of the year to conduct a major review of Australia's defence capabilities. The review is well under way. I am confident that Mr Dibb's report, together with ongoing advice from my Department, and from the Defence Force, will provide the Government with a solid foundation for future capability development. Research and development of the Jindalee over-the-horizon radar is progressing and extensive trials have already indicated the potential of the radar design for wide area surveillance of our northern approaches. We are also examining various options to enhance further our future surveillance detection and strike capability in the sea and air approaches to our north, including airborne early warning aircraft and the need for in-flight refuelling for our FA18 fighter aircraft which are now coming on line. With the arming with harpoon missiles of our P3C Orion aircraft and a range of smart weapons for our F111s and Hornets, Australia is developing a surveillance capability and an enhanced strike capability unparalleled in our region. Our ground surveillance capability is also being improved. To augment the existing two Army Reserve regional force surveillance units in the Pilbara and at Darwin, a third Army Reserve unit is to be established with responsibility for the Gulf region and Cape York. Together these units will develop military ground surveillance skills in the differing terrain and climatic conditions relating to the area from the Pilbara region in Western Australia around the northern coast to the Cairns area of northern Australia. In decisions on defence equipment the Government has placed great importance on the contribution that Australian industry is able to make. At this point I would like to emphasise that the Government has not used the review as an excuse to defer decision making. We have not operated on the assumption that we should await the product of a review before acting in a number of areas. We believe that the thrust of our strategic thinking as it relates to some elements of capability is sufficiently clear for decisions to be taken on matters that require action now. There are other areas where the timetable for decision making is such that decisions are not required until after we have the benefit of the Dibb report. I would like to remind honourable members of a number of significant decisions this Labor Government has already made. We put an end to the vacillation of the previous Administration and made a positive decision not to replace the aircraft carrier and to phase out naval fixed wing aviation except for two HS748 aircraft employed on electronic warfare training. This Government recognised the facts of our geo-strategic situation and gave priority to the provision of a range of capabilities relevant to the protection of our maritime approaches. Last month I announced the Government's decision to proceed with competitive project definition studies for new submarines for the Royal Australian Navy. This project is our second largest peacetime defence project with a cost of around $2,600m in current prices. The Government has ordered the highly capable Sikorsky Sea Hawk helicopter for our new guided missile frigates to advance our anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare capability. A viable domestic industrial base is a fundamental element of any degree of self-reliance in defence; but local design and manufacture of all of a nation's defence equipment is an option reserved for very few countries other than the superpowers. We must be selective and encourage centres of excellence which are internationally competitive. The Government is determined to foster the development of a defence industrial base which is appropriate to our economy and relevant to our concept of self-reliance. Two guided missile frigates are being constructed at Williamstown Dockyard-the first warships to be built at Williamstown for nearly 20 years. In March this year steel plates were cut for the first ship and its keel laid in July. This project, costing $859m, half of which will be spent in Australia, will provide continued employment for up to 2,000 people at the dockyard for the next eight years. The Williamstown Dockyard activity is complemented by the procurement of two mark 75/76 millimetre guns estimated to cost $13m from the Ordnance Factory, Bendigo and two Mulloka sonar systems estimated to cost $14m from Thorn EMI Australia Ltd Plessey. In relation to the submarine decision, a significant aspect is our determination that all will be constructed in Australia. Our objective is to ensure that the submarine force of the future will be supported by a well-developed infrastructure within Australia. At the same time, Australian industry will benefit significantly from the demanding work involved. This project is a very exciting one but the magnitude of the task should not be underestimated; to succeed, Australian industry will need significant upgrading. I have no doubt that it is equal to the challenge. The Army's new 105-millimetre field guns are being manufactured at the Ordnance Factory, Bendigo with Ordnance Factory, Maribyrnong the main subcontractor. Two pre-production guns were handed over to the Army in July and production of further guns is under way. The Government has continued to support Australia's aircraft industry by ensuring its participation in major defence projects such as the FA18, Navy Sea Hawk helicopters and the basic pilot training aircraft to replace the CT4. This support has resulted in increased work and the transfer of valuable technology to the industry to enable it to stay abreast of modern aircraft development. The FA18 Hornet program-the biggest peacetime defence project ever undertaken by this country-is proceeding very satisfactorily. Australian industry is playing a substantial role in this project. Seventeen Australian companies are contributing to the manufacture of the aircraft and final assembly and flight testing is being conducted at the Government Aircraft Factories' facility at Avalon in Victoria. Australian industry has performed commendably in delivering to date the first three aircraft assembled in Australia either on or ahead of schedule. The quality of Australian industry's contribution to this program provides grounds for optimism in terms of Australia's defence industrial base. In the case of the acquisition of Sea Hawk helicopters we ensured that a high level of Australian industry involvement was agreed prior to contract negotiation. An evaluation is presently being conducted of Australian and overseas designs for the basic pilot training aircraft. It is the Government's firm intention that Australian industry will have major involvement in design and development and production work regardless of the option selected. These are but some examples of the actions of this Government, actions designed to give effect to our policy of self-reliant defence. Viable defence does not consist merely of large equipment purchases. Our Defence Force depends for its effectiveness on skilled personnel trained to operate with its equipment in the most proficient manner. The Australian Defence Force has a deserved international reputation for military professionalism. The Government wishes to ensure that this professionalism is maintained and the Budget continues to allow for a range of Defence Force exercises. In the past year Australia sponsored maritime exercises in Australian waters with the United States and Canada. In addition our Navy and Air Force participated in a New Zealand-hosted maritime exercise. Next month, the Defence Force will conduct exercise Coral Sea off the east coast of Australia with significant United States participation. In November, the Defence Force will conduct exercise Tasman Warrior in the Shoalwater Bay training area with New Zealand. The Army has continued to train for and test its operational capability and to develop its tactical command skills. The Army continues also to develop its combat doctrine, including that for airmobile, parachute and mechanised operations. It is studying closely the United States experience with developing and trialling a new approach to military operations and organisation involving a combination of high technology weapons systems and very high mobility on the battlefield. I was able to discuss the United States experiment during my recent visit and to look at the concepts and equipment being developed. These could well have useful applications to our forces and doctrine and the Army will continue to keep in close touch with them. Studies are currently in progress and a decision is expected this financial year on the acquisition of new utility helicopters for the RAAF which will-this is connected with what I have been saying-substantially improve the tactical mobility of our ground forces. The Army is taking initial steps to integrate regular and reserve components. Trials are being carried out in selected areas. The intention is to enhance operating effectiveness and the Army's capability for expansion in a time of emergency, and increase the sense of purpose of those in the reserve. The capability of the Defence Force to operate in a joint environment has been improved by the establishment of headquarters, Australian Defence Force, Canberra, and Maritime Headquarters, Sydney. Qualitative improvements in the command, control and co-ordination of major operations are expected. The defence outlay of $6,535m in 1985-86 continues the orderly development of a defence capability relevant to Australia's needs. The Government recognises the importance of reality and stability in the defence planning process and the need for continuing real growth in actual defence allocations. Equipment projects approved in this Budget fit into four broad categories: Communications, surveillance, maritime defence and mobility. I need not remind honourable members of the vital contribution that effective communications play in the ability of the Defence Force to carry out its role. The communications capability of the Defence Force will be improved by completing the coverage of the DISCON system throughout Australia. This includes adding South Australia, Western Australia, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory to the network. The leasing of an Aussat transponder and the acquisition of 10 fixed and two transportable ground stations will add to the survivability and flexibililty of this important defence communications system. Expenditure this year is $23m. A significant upgrading of the Defence Force's surveillance capabilities is also under way. Aside from the consideration of upgrading the Jindalee over-the-horizon radar to near operational status, further improvements will be made to the Army's capability to detect and identify surface targets under conditions of poor visibility by the acquisition of ground based and vehicle mounted radars. There will be significant improvements in our maritime defence capability. I have already mentioned our decision to proceed with the project definition phase for new submarines. Some $10m has been allocated in this Budget. We will also be adding to our holding of the potent Harpoon anti-ship missile. When we first acquired the Harpoon only the FFG was fitted for launching I have already mentioned that the P3C maritime patrol aircraft, Oberon submarines and our F111 strike aircraft are so fitted. The additional missiles will be placed in a pool to be drawn from as appropriate by the Navy and Air Force. Also to be acquired are practice missiles, test vehicles and training equipment. An amount of $11m is provided in the Budget. The Defence Science and Technology Organisation will continue its significant contribution to Defence Force capability. The Organisation has a proud record in this field. Apart from fulfilling its basic role as a provider of specialist technical advice and service, the Organisation has successfully undertaken a number of indigenous developments. The Ikara anti-submarine weapon system, the Barra sonobuoy submarine detection system and the Jindalee over-the-horizon radar development are indicative of the major contributions to date. More recently, the concept of an anti-ship missile decoy system known as Winnin has progressed to demonstrate its feasibility. Consideration is being given to the future development of this project. However, I should mention that progress is highly dependent on collaboration with the United States of America and access to its technology. A flight simulator and weapons system trainer is also to be acquired for the Sea Hawk helicopters on order for the FFG frigates. This system will allow aircrew to achieve a level of competence in weapon systems operations and in the operation of the aircraft in simulated difficult or emergency conditions. Transport capability for the ground force will be enhanced by the acquisition of a new range of light field vehicles. Extensive trials of contending vehicles have taken place. Tender processes are now under way. Two payload sizes will be acquired-some 2,500 one-tonne and 400 two-tonne vehicles. Australian industry will be heavily involved in the production of these vehicles. Tenders are currently being evaluated for the acquisition of 43 all terrain cranes to improve the field capability of the Army's engineer, material handling and maintenance units. The Government regards the establishment of an adequate mine countermeasures capability as a high priority. One important initiative currently under way is the construction of two prototype fibreglass minehunter catamarans of Australian design. These craft are expected to enhance significantly our inshore mine warfare capability. Further attention is needed in the field of minesweeping and I have instituted funded feasibility development studies of platforms and sweep systems which aim to identify the most cost-effective way of providing Australia with a minesweeping capability. Continuing action by this Government to overcome the capital equipment backlog inherited from our predecessors, coupled with the increasing cost of defence equipment, has made it necessary to constrain the defence personnel resource. Accordingly, the overall strength of regular Defence Force and civilian personnel will fall slightly in 1985-86. The reduction will be spread across a broad range of less essential activities and will not significantly affect operational capabilities. In the Navy, reductions arising from the decision to disband the fixed wing element of the Fleet Air Arm will continue and some activities at shore establishments will be reduced, and three of our heavy landing craft will be placed in operational reserve. The Army's authorised terminal strength has been reduced from 32,677 to 32,000. At this lower level, the balance between combat and support roles will be maintained and some lower priority functions will be discontinued. The strength of the Air Force remains unchanged, faced as it is with the task of introducing the FA18 into service while at the same time retaining operational Mirage squadrons. The Government will strengthen the Army Reserve and the present recruiting program aims to achieve a strength of 26,500 this financial year, against a strength of 23,722 at 30 June last. The planned strength of civilian manpower will decrease to 39,784. This is in line with the Government's intention to constrain the rate of growth and to improve the efficiency of the Australian Public Service as a whole. About half of the 418 reduction arises from savings identified in the amalgamation of the former Department of Defence Support with the Department of Defence. The Budget provides a real increase for defence operating costs which this year will total $1,715m. This expenditure level, for training, stores and other ongoing requirements, will enable selective increases in training and support activities for the Defence Force. For the Navy, consumption of diesel steaming fuel will increase by about 9 per cent and there will be a modest build-up of stocks. Helicopter flying hours will be increased by 4 1/2 per cent following a 13 per cent increase in 1984-85. The increase in Navy's allocation of operating costs will also allow for the continuation of asbestos removal from Navy ships. Army track running allowances for light armoured fighting vehicles will increase by about 4 per cent. Air Force flying hours will increase by about 1 per cent following an 8 per cent increase in 1984-85. This will allow operations for the Air Force to be maintained at current levels, taking into account the introduction of the FA18 and the phasing out of the Mirage. Since this Government's first Budget there have been successive increases in its investment in new defence facilities. The outlay this year for the provision on capital facilities will rise by $44m to $314m, an increase of 16 per cent. Major projects include the continuing construction of RAAF Base, Tindal as a home base for a squadron of FA18 aircraft for which the allocation is $28m this year, the development of facilities for the FA18 at RAAF Base, Williamtown, $18m, and the upgrading of the Derby airfield to give it the capability to accept all RAAF aircraft under all operating conditions, $22m. Improvement to training facilities will occur with the commencement of construction of a submarine escape training facility at HMAS Stirling in Western Australia and with the development of the RAAF Base, East Sale in Victoria. Final cost of this project is estimated at $23m with $2m to be spent this year. The Government is mindful of the need to provide satisfactory standards of accommodation for Defence Force members and their families. Faced with redressing yet another area of neglect by the coalition Government we have allocated $61m this year for the acquisition and construction of new and replacement houses for Defence Force personnel, and for improvements to the existing housing stock. The Government has planned 680 new housing commencements for 1985-86, with substantial programs in Brisbane, where 30 houses will commence; Toowoomba, 29; Sydney, 205; Melbourne, 39; Adelaide-Woodside, 85; and Woomera, 50. Major housing programs commenced in previous years are also continuing at Holsworthy, Rockingham, Puckapunyal and Darwin. In this statement, I have highlighted the main features of the defence Budget. This Government will continue to strive to achieve annual real growth in succeeding defence budgets consistent with that of the economy as a whole. As to the future, the Dibb review will provide an important contribution to the Government's judgments on force structure development, based on strategic assessments endorsed by the Government and based on realistic financial expectations. We have either in possession or in prospect a range of capabilities that will be able to exploit our geographic advantages. We have adopted a defence policy which is clear, consistent and attainable. We will pursue independence of action and self-reliance. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —by leave-I am afraid that the epitaph of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) lies in the words that he uttered in the last two sentences of his speech. He claims to have adopted `a defence policy which is clear, consistent and attainable'. He says: `We will pursue independence of action and self-reliance'. Sadly, today's speech has been a regurgitation of the Minister's Press statements since his appointment and offers little hope in what one would have hoped might be a reasonable analysis of the defence needs of this country and the problems that he faces in trying to meet them. Indeed, if I can pick up that last paragraph, I think his defence policy is anything but clear. It is inconsistent and, sadly, I believe it to be unattainable. He talks about pursuing independence of action and self reliance, yet speaks little of the implications for Australia of the changing defence environment in which Australia finds itself in this part of the world. I think it is particularly important that we look at the content of what the Minister said and see what he has added, if anything, to the general sphere of the defence debate. I can well understand the Minister's concern-in the philosophic sense-to establish the directions of where he is going. However, Sir Humphrey would be very proud of the paragraph on page 4 of the Minister's speech in which he stated: This Government is developing a defence force with capabilities relevant to a greater self-reliant defence of Australia, whilst at the same time fully appreciating the importance to our security of effective relations with our regional neighbours and with our traditional friends. I do not think I have ever heard a better expression of yes ministerish. Of course, he is saying essentially that his objective is to try to provide for continental defence within Australia. Further in his speech he makes much play of contrasting that approach, which I have explained I feel is far from simply and eloquently expressed, with the contrary position which he says is the position which we adopted when in government. He stated: . . . the Australian Armed Forces were deliberately organised and equipped primarily to operate as but part of a larger allied force overseas. At the beginning of trying to analyse the Minister's statement I think it is worth referring to an article in the Australian Outlook contributed by Mr Paul Dibb, to whom the Minister referred in his speech and to whom he has essentially passed responsibility for determining the character and nature and force structure of Australia for the future. In an article entitled `Soviet strategy towards Australia, New Zealand and the South-West Pacific' on page 70 of that particular edition of Australian Outlook he stated: The present severe political tensions within the ANZUS alliance are creating several important strategic benefits for the Soviet Union. Without going into an analysis of Mr Dibb's remarks, in brief he says that a breakdown of ANZUS represents a major advance for the Soviet cause. I think before we start looking at the Minister's speech and what he is outling as his parameters for Australia's defence security we need to recognise that Australia finds itself in a changing defence situation. No-one could think that a Soviet attack on Australia is imminent. However, one certainly needs to appreciate that the words of Paul Dibb are accurate. However, the Minister has advocated a defence stratgegy largely oriented towards continental defence; at least it would be, if the contents of the Minister's paper matched the rhetoric of his philosophy. On this side of the House we believe that given the defence situation in this part of the world it is futile for us to isolate ourselves from our friends and allies. Indeed, we believe in light of that statement by Paul Dibb that it would be appropriate for this Government, its Prime Minister and its Foreign Minister to spend more than a little time in trying to persuade New Zealanders of the error of their ways. Instead of that, they are standing back quite passively and accepting that the New Zealand attitude towards ANZUS and the seeming collapse of ANZUS are inevitable-the consequences of which we need not be concerned. They talk of having some special bilateral arrangement with the Americans. While it might be true that in many areas we have a special relationship with the United States, for us to believe that without New Zealand as a third member of that ANZUS relationship the security arrangements in this part of the world will be the same is futile indeed. It is important therefore that we diplomatically pursue efforts to try to re-establish the meaningfulness of ANZUS particularly in light of that perceived defence threat which Paul Dibb himself identified. Therefore, what we need to develop is a defence force which not only has a capability of defence within Australia but also a capacity to co-ordinate and co-operate with our allies beyond Australia's shores and, certainly, at the extremity of Australia's 200 mile zone. Nothing in this defence statement gives one any belief that this Government has even turned its thoughts to the consequence of trying, for example, to defend any kind of attack on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. It has given no thought to projecting our general forces within the area of which we are geographically part or within those areas of the South Pacific and South East Asia- Mr Beazley —Did you want me to speak for three hours? Mr SINCLAIR —I would be quite happy to. I believe it is an essential pre-requirement in our whole defence planning that we look at not just defending Australia but also those areas where we can project our power. I believe that if one starts from there our defence project would certainly not be to contain the limits of our defence capability but to ensure that we had a flexibility, which sadly nothing in this address on the status of the defence forces satisfies. The Minister resorted to some rhetoric. Unfortunately, his statistics were not too accurate. I think it is worth commenting that he opened his address by alleging that in the last full year when the coalition was in government we presided over a real decrease of 1.7 per cent in defence spending. I think it is about time that the Minister understood that the Budget Papers are the basis by which most of us assess the level of defence spending. He claims that in the last year of the previous Government there was a real fall of 1.7 per cent in defence spending. I address his attention to table 4 of this year's Budget Papers which indicates that this percentage changes in terms of Budget outlays based on constant 1979-80 prices. It states that in 1982-83, the Budget for which we were responsible and the one to which the Minister's erroneous figuring was directed, there was an increase-I repeat, an increase-of 4.4 per cent in real terms in defence spending. We all know that the Minister has a creative computer, but I think it is worth while his addressing a computer more directly to the number of personnel and the real strength of the Australian Defence Force for they show that the strength of the ADF has fallen by 2.5 per cent since Labor came to office. By the end of this financial year, on the basis of the approved strengths which were outlined in the Budget and repeated today, the figure will have fallen by almost 4 per cent. In the meantime we find that the number of people in the civilian force has increased in real terms. I will address those matters in a moment. The first thing which one needs to address in looking at the parameters of the Defence Force as they are set by the Minister, albeit with the constraints that he is pursuing, is procurement. He has a philosophical idea of continental defence; rather than trying to ensure that Australia can take a proper place both in this region and with our strong and powerful friends, and matching the concerns that we properly should have for that strategic situation that Paul Dibb addressed in that Australian Outlook article to which I referred earlier: The Minister talked in the course of his speech of his recognition of the facts of our geo-strategic situation. He said: This Government recognised the facts of our geo-strategic situation and gave priority to the provision of a range of capabilities relevant to the protection of our maritime approaches. I presume it was on that basis that the Government decided that no longer would the A4s, the attack aircraft operated by the Fixed Wing Fleet Air Arm, be required and that the Tracker aircraft could be disposed of. I know that neither of those decisions were taken specifically by the Minister, but if he is looking at the provision of capabilities relevant to the protection of our maritime approaches, I find it impossible to accept that we can scrap our A4 and Tracker aircraft and say that we are taking positive provisions to try to redress the problems of trying to protect our maritime approaches. While one can accept that in the very short time that the Minister has been in control of the portfolio he has had some difficulty in trying to allocate his priorities, I hope that he will look beyond the very short-sighted vision that his predecessor used. Yet if the procurement record of the Minister and that of his predecessor are examined, sadly, there are a number of very serious questions to which I believe this statement would have been better directed, at least in part, to answering. I think it is necessary that we address those now. Firstly, we should look at the submarine issue. There is no doubt that the present state of the definition study and the submarine have caused some controversy within the Minister's own Party ranks. We know that the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell), for example, has said that the process has been a sham, that the whole process has been slanted to achieving the Navy's predilections. I am no apologist for the honourable member for Kalgoorlie. We all know that his statements tend at times to reflect prejudices that he properly enjoys. But I think it is worth noting that an article in the Age of 13 August 1985 said that the director of the Navy's new submarine project team was considering resigning after changes in the project's management. We all know about the very serious questions that are raised regarding the Government's decision to choose a diesel-electric submarine in the mode of the submarines of World War II instead of at least considering a nuclear powered option. I draw the Minister's attention to Jane's Defence Weekly of 6 July 1985 wherein on page 3 of that bulletin he will find that the Royal Navy's Oberon class diesel-electric submarines are acknowledged as no longer being the quietest in the world. The publication explains that, accordingly to Royal Navy sources, the new Trafalgar class nuclear hunter killer boats now have that title. It points out that not only is the HMS Trafalgar quieter than the old Oberon class but its sister ships, Turbulent and Tireless, which have a shrouded pumpjet, further reduce the noise by eliminating cavitation. So I believe that all the circumstances of the choice of the diesel-electric design are very much in question. There are questions about the basis on which the preferred tenderers in the project definition stage have been selected. I do not believe that the Minister or the Government, in this House or anywhere else, has satisfied the proper concerns of the Australian people about adequate consideration being given in respect of either nuclear propulsion or whether the right project definition studies have been set down. We all know that sadly in the past the Navy has not always been able to make up its mind about what sort of design it wanted. On too many occasions there has been a history of the Navy having changed its design specifications after an order had been placed. I believe that in this case that certainly would have been avoided had it chosen a submarine, as the original tender document had suggested, which was going into service in the navy of the country that was submitting the design. That has not been the case with either of the submarines that are part of this project definition study. There are certainly very real concerns that the two boats are both paper boats. Their ability to meet the requirements of the Royal Australian Navy will require a great deal of examination and analysis. However, if the situation were not bad enough in the case of the submarines, exactly the same applies to the Pacific patrol boats. Once again, it seems that the Minister has been snowed. I do not know whether this is because the Services are being overridden by members of the Defence bureaucracy or whether there is an inability within the respective services to agree on a final definition on the boats. Of course, the Pacific patrol boats project also involves the Australian Development Assistance Bureau and, presumably, some members of the Department of Foreign Affairs. I do not know where the blame lies. However, I think it is worth commenting that it has been alleged to me that a draftsman from the Defence Department was given leave of absence to be employed by the ultimate successful tenderer on the preparation of the design for the Pacific patrol boat during the tendering processes. At the conclusion of the tender preparations he returned to Canberra. He worked in the office in which the tenders were being evaluated. After tender evaluations were completed he then left the Department and took up permanent employment with the company that now has the contract. If that is true, I believe that there are very serious questions that must be asked as to the capability of the design. Having put that aside, I note that the Pacific patrol boat itself fails to meet tender requirements. I am told by others who also competed for the contract that their boats were able better to meet the design specifications of the countries concerned. It needs to be understood that there is a total difference between a boat that is designed to meet patrol requirements and one that is to go out as a fighting craft. All the South Pacific countries which are presumably to be the subject of offers of these Pacific patrol boats are concerned about the size and capability of the American tuna boats which on occasions certainly have caused South Pacific governments anxiety. It is doubtful whether the boat that has been selected is capable of catching them or, in the event that it could catch them, whether it couldl do anything about them. It is important that we realise that the South Pacific nations look to us to give leadership, to co-operate with them and to provide a military capability that will assist and not reduce their independence. One need only note that two nations of the Pacific have already rejected offers of the Pacific patrol boats to recognise the problems that exist in the whole concept of the boat that has been selected by the Minister and the Government. The first nation, of course, is Fiji and the second is Papua New Guinea. We read this morning that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has stepped in and that Papua New Guinea will now accept the boats. The point is that there is little doubt that the Pacific patrol boat, the design of which has been selected by the Minister, has not met the basic specifications and tender requirements. Mr Beazley —You supported the design when we announced it in the Parliament. Mr SINCLAIR —I have not supported the design. I did not support the Minister's selection of company. I said that the concept of selecting a boat to help in the South Pacific is one thing. The selection of this boat needs to be subject to proper scrutiny. I am assured by at least two of the other tenderers that their boats could have been built at a lower cost, that they would have met the tender requirements better and that they certainly would have been more acceptable to the countries to which the boat is designed to be given. Therefore, the Navy's submarine and the South Pacific patrol boat procurement programs have fundamental problems. We have learnt nothing today about what is happening with a replacement for the River class boats. We are told that two follow-on destroyers are to be built at Williamstown. While I commend the concept of building in Australia I trust that very tight design specifications will be laid down to ensure that they meet the requirements. There are problems about the Phalanx close-in weapons system which I think might well have been addressed in the Minister's statement today. The Minister's talked in his statement about trying to develop an industrial design and production capability in this country. Yet he scrapped Project Waler in favour of maintaining the present M113 fleet which has been severely criticised by the Auditor-General in his report. We are told that the brake assemblies of the vehicle have to be inspected every 100 kilometres travelled; that 21 guns were unserviceable in November 1983 and that that number increased in June 1984 to 32; that in mid-1984 replacement parts had not been received and an examination of guns after each 50 firings was required; that the turret could not be used because of a problem with fumes; that there was unnecessary free play in the machine gun mounts; that the problem of providing all round vision had not been solved; and that the fitting of safety devices was inadequate and so on. All of these points are set out in the Auditor-General's report. This is the armoured personnel carrier that the Minister wants to preserve because he is not prepared to give the design and production capability to Australian industry. Yet he has the hide to come into this House today and tell that he is interested in Australian manufacturing. What he has done has been to ensure that the Army Project Waler is scrapped. As a result we have to live with this piece of equipment. The comments of Major-General Jack Kelly are recorded in the publication Defence Industry in the following terms: We asked General Kelly could the Army `live' with the fact that some replacement equipment like the Armoured Personnel Carriers (or Infantry Fighting Vehicles known as Project Waler) being perhaps 10 years away. Kelly simply replied: `We have to. But I wouldn't like to go to war with it say eight years from now.' Of course, the whole point of this is that the equipment that we have has been criticised by the Auditor-General and by the military and this is what we are left with. Yet the Minister talks about trying to sponsor domestic design and manufacture capability. What a laugh! But the position is even worse in respect of the Air Force. The point of all this is that this is not happening in just one service or in respect of just one item of equipment. There are major problems in each of the services and with each of the procurement programs to which the Minister's Department has turned its hands. After a very protracted exercise the Air Force laid down its design requirements for Project Wamira. Those specifications were very tightly set down. An inquiry was undertaken by Sir James McNeill, the former Chairman and Managing Director of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd to ensure that Wamira met the design requirements. However, the Minister decided: `Oh, no; we are not going to go ahead with this. We are going to see whether we can get somebody from Brazil or somebody from Switzerland to provide an alternative aircraft'. Quite seriously, unless we go ahead with an Australian designed aircraft, design capability in Australia will virtually be put back 10 years. It is critical that an aircraft that has been designed for Australian conditions to meet RAAF requirements be developed by the RAAF for the Australian Services. I believe it is absolutely ridiculous that the Minister has gone through a process which has led to two alternatives which I have been told do not meet the design specifications. While they might offer a low price in terms of initial purchase, by the time they have had wind modifications, undercarriage modifications and goodness knows what else to meet the Air Force requirements, the cost will be significantly higher. While I strongly sympathise with the problems that the Minister might have, it is about time that something was done about them. Whether, as I suspect it might be, the operation of the committee system within the Department of Defence is totally inadequate, whether the bureaucracy is overriding the uniformed Services or whether it is a lack of design capability, something needs to be done to ensure that the Australian taxpayer gets value for his defence procurement dollar. There is a need to extend design and production capability within this country through the procurement of new items which are essential in the general defence embrace that the Minister has set or the wider one which we on this side of the House believe is necessary. We then come to personnel. There is no doubt that there is a very real requirement to provide adequately for members of the armed forces. I mentioned previously that there will be a decline in the number of members of the Australian armed forces under the Minister's control by the end of this year-a decline of about 4 per cent in the Hawke Government's period in office. Sadly, that decline has meant a reduction in uniformed personnel. We are told in the Minister's statement today that while there will be some slight reduction in the number of civilian personnel, that will be minimal and is largely a product of the amalgamation of the Department of Defence with the Department of Defence Support. It is not good enough that we find that the RAN and the Army are being reduced and their capabilities significantly affected. If there is to be a closure of land bases and ground facilities-I refer, for example, to HMAS Moresby in Brisbane-surely it would have been possible, practical and desirable for the Minister to tell us today why, how and in what way that capability which was previously necessary is now to be replaced. Instead, we are told that three heavy landing craft are being laid up. We read from Press releases that in regard to the other pieces of equipment, two ships are being transferred to HMAS Cairns. But we are not given any reason for the closure of those facilities. We are told: `Defence personnel don't matter; we must keep up our civilian numbers'. If we look at the reserves, we find the position is even more ludicrous. The Minister and the Prime Minister, very commendably, are embarking on a recruitment program. But the Minister must understand that until we provide some real incentive to those who serve in the reserves there will continue to be problems. Sadly, there has been a fall in the numbers in the reserves from a level of 33,474 when we were in office to 24,572 in March 1985-a fall of 28 per cent. If we look at the number of training days, we find again that whereas, according to Major-General Jack Kelly, who was then General Officer Commanding of Field Force Command, there should be 39 training days a year in order to maintain minimal standards of efficiency, under the Labor Government the number has been reduced to 31.5. While there has been some increase, there is little doubt that the number of training days is still less than the minimal training days that the Army believes are necessary to achieve minimal standards of efficiency. I turn to the question of pay and conditions. It needs to be understood that we on this side of the House certainly support the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal. But we are concerned that there seems to be within the Services a very real reaction against the level of determination handed down. I think it is appropriate for me to quote from a telex that is applicable to the defence pay rise which was circulated within the Department of Defence. It reads: Personnel reacted in a sober and polite manner but are deeply hurt. They expressed bitter disappointment and general discontent at the . . . decisions on both 5.9 per cent pay rise and the lack of retrospectivity. Many members genuinely believe, however mistakenly, that the pay case was a PR sham, the result having been decided from the outset. There is a fundamental problem in regard to morale in the Services. We know that on the last occasion on which a cost of living increase of 1.6 per cent was granted to servicemen rents were increased to a greater degree on the day on which that pay rise was announced. The inevitable result is that the attitude and view of Services personnel is that they are significantly disadvantaged compared with their colleagues in the private sector. Considering the range of skills and the dedication of those who are wearing Australia's uniform, there is little doubt that they certainly need to be protected and recognised in a way that ensures both the maintenance of morale and the maintenance of numbers within the Services. The Minister has delivered his customary Budget analysis today. Unfortunately, it adds little to the knowledge that could have been gleaned by a perusal of all of the Press statements that have been released since his appointment as Minister. There are many serious questions relating to the capability of the defence forces, their organisation and their ability to meet projected demands. In my view, unless something can be done to extend financial delegation to members of the uniformed services, and unless we can get better value for our defence dollar, we will continue to have major problems in meeting Australia's defence requirements. We on this side of the House are concerned about the ability of Australia not only to meet a perceived defence threat but also to deter any from arising. We believe that deterrence must be the basis for structuring and developing an adequate Australian Defence Force. None of those issues has been addressed in the ministerial statement; rather, we have been told about a catalogue of decisions, some of which are commendable, but many of which raise as many questions as they answer. I ask that the Minister examine very closely the general capabilities of the Services to ensure that there is not a continuation of procurement decisions which seem to generate more questions than they answer. Otherwise, sadly, the capability of the Defence Force is likely to fall rather than improve in the future, and those high aspirations that he expressed in the concluding stage of his statement will be, as I have expressed, entirely in the negative and there will be nothing positive about them. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for the presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: Taxation: Small Business To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: Introduction of any additional capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties is opposed on the grounds that: they adversely affect the small and medium size businesses in Australia, including farms, destroying incentive and discouraging investment in this important area of the economy; the Australian economy, and employment in particular, is heavily reliant on growth in small businesses; any capital gains that might result when owners of small enterprises finally sell these assets are not ``windfall gains'', but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business or farm by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business or farm to create growth and jobs; the owners of small businesses and farms often depend on a capital gain-which are simply deferred salaries-when they eventually sell these assets to sustain them in retirement; Your Petitioners request that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, will protect the rights of private enterprise and reject any inequitable additional taxes. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Andrew,Mr Cadman,Mr Fife and Mr McArthur. 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 consessional price of fuel in rural areas-without which there will be increased freight and production costs. Your Petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will restore concessional price of fuel in rural areas for the benefit of all Australians. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Andrew,Mr Bilney and Mr Porter. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, the Petition of the undersigned respectively showeth: That the recent cuts announced in the Mini-Budget to Preschools and Day Care Services are a reversal of A.L.P. policy to make child care services available to all at an affordable cost. Further, that the fee rises arising from the cuts will cause great hardship to the majority of families using these services. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House fully restores all Federal funding to children's services in Australia, and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt,Mr Campbell and Mr Free. 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 to assist the greening of Australia. (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,Mr MacKellar and Mr Scholes. 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 reallocating at least 10% of our military expenditure to fund environmental repair programs. (b) Implementing National Recycling Programs to reuse water, and to compost into hygienic humus all presently wasted organic garbage and sewage-sludge mixed with fine ground powder from mineral-rich gravels and rocks, to use as a natural fertiliser in revitalising impoverished soils; (c) Developing National Employment Programs to give priority to irrigation systems and the planting and growing of healthy forests, food-producing trees and other crops and vegetation to assist the greening of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Bilney. 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 reallocating at least 10% of our military expenditure to fund environmental repair programs. (b) Implementing National Recycling Programs to reuse water, and to compost into hygienic humus all presently wasted organic garbage and sewage-sludge mixed with fine ground powder from mineral-rich gravels and rocks, to use as a natural fertiliser in revitalising impoverished soils; (c) Developing National Employment Programs to give priority to irrigation systems and the planting and growing of healthy forests, food-producing trees and other crops and vegetation to assist the greening of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Robert Brown. 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 reallocating at least 10% of our military expenditure to fund environmental repair programs. (b) Implementing National Recycling Programs to reuse water, and to compost into hygienic humus all presently wasted organic garbage and sewage-sludge mixed with fine ground powder from mineral-rich gravels and rocks, to use as a natural fertiliser in revitalising impoverished soils; (c) Developing National Employment Programs to give priority to irrigation systems and the planting and growing of healthy forests, food-producing trees and other crops and vegetation to assist the greening of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by 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 disarmamt, economic well-being for all and full employment. This Initiative will help to ensure a sustainable society conserving natural resources, and revitalising soils essential for growing a plentiful and healthy food supply and tree cover. By achieving these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world to follow. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: (1) Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year for Repairing the Earth. (2) Implement action programs leading up to 1989 which will include: (a) Actively supporting the International Year of Peace in 1986 by reallocating at least 10% of our military expenditure to fund environmental repair programs. (b) Implementing National Recycling Programs to reuse water, and to compost into hygienic humus all presently wasted organic garbage and sewage-sludge mixed with fine ground powder from mineral-rich gravels and rocks, to use as a natural fertiliser in revitalising impoverished soils; (c) Developing National Employment Programs to give priority to irrigation systems and the planting and growing of healthy forests, food-producing trees and other crops and vegetation to assist the greening of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Child. 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 Hollis. 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 MacKellar. 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 Staples. 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 Accommodation and Hospitality Industry. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that a service tax not be imposed on short-stay accommodation and that a deduction for tax purposes for legitimate entertainment expenses remain. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Andrew and Mr Sinclair. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale and Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That the overwhelming majority of Australians are completely satisfied with the existing Australian National Flag. 2. That we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as provided in Section (3) of the Flags Act, unless such proposed change is first voted on by the people of Australia and passed by a majority of voters in a majority of States. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by 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 ever pray. by Mr Blunt and Mr Downer. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned Citizens of Australia respectfully sayeth: - That we the undersigned are totally opposed to any taxation change which involves a tax on Health Fund contributions, health charges or benefits; - That we are already required to pay a 1 per cent levy to partly finance the Medicare scheme and that we would regard any further taxation of our health insurance arrangements as unfair and unreasonable; - That therefore we urge the Government to ensure that there is no taxation on illness and no special taxation on those who seek to insure themselves against the cost of private health care. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife and Mr Sinclair. 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 and Mr Staples. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth government (1) Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. (2) Recognize that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection, storage, and research has been publicly funded. (3) In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognize that any system giving `property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. (4) Recognize that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. (5) Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Milton and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we, the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: ``No Cuts For Kids''! We deplore the proposed cut-back of funding for pre-school and child care in the mini-budget as the proposal adversely affects young families, women's employment prospects and children's development in their most formative years. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should: Reverse proposals for cuts in children's services. 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 the government reverse its decision to cut pre-school funding in the mini-budget. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Andrew. 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. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The Labor Government's policy of automatically increasing the excise applying to beer and therefore its price, eliminates the opportunity for public or parliamentary debate on a tax increase, perpetrates inflation, reduces job opportunities in the hotel and brewing industries, And your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to immediately repeal those legislative provisions that automatically increase the excise on beer when the C.P.I. increases. 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. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives should disallow the new Customs and Objectionable Publications Ordinance and that the Attorney-General should introduce laws to: (1) Prevent the importation and sale of hard-core pornography (2) Prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications (3) Register imported pornographic video tapes for non-commercial use with the Film Censorship Board (4) Require the Censor to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes (5) Protect Australians, particularly women and children from exploitation; and Your petitioners also request that, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned electors, are deeply concerned at the possibility of an increase in indirect taxation currently being considered by the government. To pose a broadly based consumption tax would mean a proportionately greater burden on low income groups and worsen their already precarious and impoverished position. Women who are supporting mothers, together with their children, are acknowledged as the largest single group forced to exist below the poverty line. As beneficiaries of an already inadequate government pension, their futures would be even more jeopardised if there were to be a change towards increased broadly based consumption taxation. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Federal government not adopt the proposed shift towards increased indirect taxation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cross. To the Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That ethnic public broadcasters are not represented by the national organisations, the Public Broadcasting Association of Australia or the Special Broadcasting Service. 2. That public ethnic broadcasters nationally have formed an Interim National Committee to represent the interests of public ethnic broadcasting and that neither the Special Broadcasting Service nor the government as represented by the Minister for Communications have, to date, been prepared to negotiate with the Committee. (Interim National Ethnic and Multicultural Broadcasting Committee). 3. That the main concern of this committee is the desire of ethnic broadcasters to maintain the Special Broadcasting Service as the funding authority, for the time being, as proposed in section 6.76 of the report of the ``Committee of Review of the Special Broadcasting Service''. 4. That the Interim Committee which represents 90% of all subsidised public ethnic broadcasting in Australia does not wish to see the authority for funding transferred to the public broadcasting foundation in which they have expressed no confidence. by Mr Cross. To the Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the Flags Amendment Bill, 1984 as presented by Senator Durack, which ensures that the Australian Flag cannot be changed at the whim of the Executive Government and passed by the Upper House, March, 1985 be brought forward to the Lower House for reading. Your petitioners humbly pray that the members of the House of Representatives in parliament assembled will ensure that the Flags Amendment Bill, 1984, will be presented to the House of Representatives at the earliest possible time and your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever 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 of Australia respectfully showeth that: In arid areas motorists die of thirst and heat on roads and highways. The Australian Bureau of Statistics show that between 1980 and 1982: 29 died of thirst and 42 died of heat. The State Library of New South Wales mentions that in 1983, 11 more died of thirst. The number of victims of heat has not yet been disclosed. They die because there is no water supply along the roads at strategic points. The climate is ruthless. The Bureau of Meteorology mentions that 40*C temperature prevails in summer with rise up to 50*C. Evaporation during this time is always very high it is 700mm in January in the deserts. Under these conditions motorists need a lot more water than usual. The body fluid requirement as given by the VFG section 14 states that the water requirement per person per 24 hrs is 1 L. to 5 L. resting in the shade and 2 L. to 10 L. walking when the temperature rises from 27* to 35*C mean temperature, i.e. the water requirement becomes 5 times higher when the temperature rises 8* above 27*. This is what mainly endangers the life of the motorists because this rise of temperature may occur any time and they have not enough water to face this new situation. They have to take the maximum quantity of water to cover them for hot waves, they don't know what quantity they would need and if they knew it there would not be enough room in the car to put it. The purport of this petition is to prevent motorists dying of thirst and heat on the roads and highways should their motorcar break down through the placement of Watercups along the roads and highways every 10 km. Watercups offer water, shade, shelter, direction, freedom, they can walk back to safety and, confidence, they know they will not die on the roads of thirst or heat. Cost $60 each. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Free. 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 effect 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 effect 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 ABC listeners and viewers showeth that the autonomy and non-commercial independent broadcasting services of the ABC is in jeopardy because the ABC is currently having to bear additional costs involved in the AUSSAT satellite operation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: (1) The Government restores $20 million to the ABC's budget for 1985-86 to ensure that the services the ABC provides the Australian public are maintained and improved, particularly in terms of educational and rural programs, and that ABC staff are not needlessly retrenched. (2) The Government will not introduce corporate sponsorship or any form of advertising into the ABC since this would destroy the independence and autonomy of the ABC. The non-comercial independent broadcasting service provided by the ABC, is fundamental to Australian democracy. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hand. 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 petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to stop the commercial exploitation of the kangaroo. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House re-apply the ban on the export of kangaroo products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hollis. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows: We consider that Australian military aid to Indonesia is used to prolong the illegal occupation of East Timor by Indonesia and to prevent the people of East Timor from exercising their basic human right of self-determination. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government take immediate action to stop all military aid to Indonesia as long as Indonesia continues its illegal occupation of East Timor. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hollis. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens, teachers, parents and students working in and for the interests of government schools and TAFE colleges showeth that: 1. We oppose the proposed cuts of 75 teaching and 40 ancillary positions in ACT government schools and 28 teaching positions in ACT TAFE colleges. 2. We deplore the cuts to public education and the harm caused to the opportunities of thousands of Canberra's youth. 3. We call on the Commonwealth Government to honour its primary obligation to public education and its commitments to increase participation and equity in education by not implementing staffing cuts in ACT government schools and TAFE colleges. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Langmore. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, humbly pray to Parliament assembled that steps be taken to supply us with a satisfactory telephone service. Our present exchange is Axe Creek, Victoria [(054) district] and we have experienced severe difficulties with service extending over several years. These complaints, enumerated below, have already been reported via regular channels but have not been rectified to our satisfaction: 1. Crossed lines between subscribers. 2. Intermittent static on the lines. 3. Insufficient volume level on many links. 4. Overloading, particularly at peak hours, on STD facilities. 5. Prefix `0' dialling to gain dial tone, intermittent. 6. Reports from other areas making incoming calls to this district getting engaged signals when telephones are, in fact, not engaged. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Keefe. 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 quality of commercial television in the area which is deplorable, has been further affected by the recent boosting of Victorian TV signals. Channels 9 and 10 have been almost obliterated by this boost. The impending introduction of Channel 8 to the area does not compensate, as its content is largely Victorian. South Australians wish to watch South Australian television. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the signal from Adelaide commercial television be boosted to cover a wider area and to regain channels lost by boosted signals from Channel 6 at Ballarat. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to reject the recommendations of the Commonwealth Schools Commission contained in `Funding Policies for Australian Schools', concerning proposed increases in State aid to private schools and the proposed community standard for education funding. 2. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to declare a three year moratorium (1985-1987) on increases in State aid to private schools and on grants for new private schools and for increased private school enrolments. 3. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to re-affirm their primary obligation to government schools and to implement all 1983 ALP election promises for increased funding to government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. 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,Mr Porter and Mr Wilson. 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: Introduction of any additional capital gains taxes, property or wealth taxes, death or gift duties is opposed on the grounds that: they adversely affect the small and medium size businesses in Australia, destroying incentive and discouraging investment in this important area of the economy; the Australian economy, and employment in particular, is heavily reliant on growth in small businesses; any capital gains that might result when owners of small businesses finally sell the business are not `windfall gains' but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business to create growth and jobs; the owners of small businesses often depend on a capital gain-which are simply deferred salaries-when they eventually sell their business to sustain them in retirement. the people of Australia are already being subjected to the oppressive tax policies of the highest taxing government in Australia's history-the Hawke Socialist Government. Your Petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, will protect the rights of private enterprise and reject any inequitable additional taxes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of 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 DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Mr Speaker has 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 erratic, inconsistent and deceitful conduct of the Government on tax reform. 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)(3.52) —There is no political issue in Australia at present which is of more concern to the Australian public than that of taxation reform. It is perfectly obvious from its demeanour at Question Time that the Government is in a state of great nervousness on this subject. One had only to look at the glum faces of the Government back benchers as the answers to questions of Opposition members were stammered and stuttered out by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating). I was frankly amazed to hear at Question Time today the Treasurer carrying on almost in the vein of: `Oh please, do not hit me. You are not allowed to criticise us because, if you do, you are engaging in seedy politicking'. It was as though he was saying that it was not the legitimate task of an Opposition to bring the Government to account when it has misled the public-when it has said one thing before an election, done another thing after an election and then pretended that it did not say before an election what in fact it did say. Of course, that is the reality with this Treasurer. Until now, September 1985, this Treasurer has had three positions on a capital gains tax. The first position he had was when he was addressing the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party. He told that branch that a capital gains tax was political suicide and that its members ought to oppose it. That was the position that he had several years ago. Everybody knew that the Treasurer was dead against a capital gains tax because that was politically inexpedient. That was his position several years ago. Then we came to the famous election in 1983 and we had that remarkable quote from the Prime Minister, which I read out in Question Time today. He said: `Let me make it crystal clear so that even those in the Opposition can understand it and it cannot be distorted, it cannot be twisted or misrepresented; there will be no new capital gains tax under a Labor government'. That is what the Prime Minister said to the Australian people. Mr N. A. Brown —None at all? Mr HOWARD —He said that there would be none at all under a Labor government. Did anyone hear the Treasurer then get up and say: `Hang on, Bob. You cannot say that because, when we get in, we will have to introduce it'. No, he kept silent. Perhaps the clue to that was found when he was being interviewed by the Melbourne Age several months later. He started to reveal for the first time his true feelings-I know him to hold them and I do not hold that against him-about the need to shift the taxation base away from income tax towards a greater dependence on indirect taxation. When he was reminded that that was not the policy of the Labor Party, he said: `Oh well, they were the things we said before we got into government, but now we are in government the ball game has all changed'. Of course, it was to change not once but twice for this Treasurer. Before the New South Wales branch of the Labor Party he said he was against a capital gains tax. He sat silent while his Prime Minister said that one would not be introduced. Of course, during the election last year he remained completely mute. He would now have us believe that at the election campaign last year he kept all of the options open, that the Labor Party alone bravely kept all of the options open. The fact is that during the election campaign he, and many others, campaigned against and criticised those elements in our policy which were in favour of a shift towards a greater dependence on indirect tax. We were honest enough in that election campaign to express our support for that. Whenever we expressed our support for that this man now sitting at the table, the Treasurer, criticised us and said that it would not work. Yet he pretends that at the last election campaign he was the honest broker who revealed all and said that we had to keep all of these options open. The fact remains that he was perfectly prepared to behave in a politically expedient manner during that election campaign. The Australian Labor Party went into that election campaign with no real policy on taxation. We went with a policy. It is still our policy and forms the basis of an alternative approach to taxation reform in this country. We all know what happened after the election. No sooner had the Government been returned to office than the stories started to leak out that big taxation reform was on. That ushered in this long period of debate. If ever a person has strutted the country and elevated macho-politics to an art form, it is this Treasurer. He went around Australia saying: `I alone, the Treasurer of Australia, have the courage to tackle the degenerating Australian taxation system. I alone am not a shrinking violet and I will not be deterred by the first whiff of grapeshot. I will not walk away when the going gets a bit tough. Frankly, if these reforms are not made, people of my outstanding ability ought not to remain in politics; we ought to get out'. Of course, if he were true to his words, he would have done that. But I do not want to see him depart from politics because I think he does make a contribution to economic debate on his own side. I notice that my good friend the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) is shaking his head because he does not really think that the Treasurer does make a contribution to economic debate in this Parliament. But I think he does. Everybody in this House knows that there were elements of that taxation package that he put to the taxation summit which coincided with aspects of the Opposition's policy. I was not unwilling at the time to say that and I will say it again: I have yet to be convinced that one can have a fundamental reform of our taxation system which does not take away the excessive reliance on personal tax and moves towards a greater dependence on indirect taxation. That has been in our policy but of course the Treasurer could not get it up. I remind the Treasurer of this when he talks about the greatest taxation reform that we are to have at the end of this week-or will it be at the end of the week? Are we to have to wait another two weeks or will we have the Parliament recalled next week in order to have the tax-- Dr Theophanous —This week. Mr HOWARD —This week? Ha! We did not get an answer from the Prime Minister; we could not get it from the Treasurer but we have it from good old Andrew over there. The honourable member for Calwell tells us that it will have to be this week. Let us go back to what the Treasurer said on the PM program on 3 July. He said: What has to be understood I think is that by cutting out the broad based consumption tax you cut out the heart of the package and with it the opportunity for significant increases in benefits and reductions in tax rates and one may ask is that what the critics of option C, is that what they want for the people they represent. What he was really saying was that if one did not have his beloved option C, one did not really have fundamental taxation reform. Yet he comes into this Parliament saying that at the end of this week we will have the greatest taxation reform this country has ever seen. The other extraordinary thing was that my colleague, the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) asked the Prime Minister this simple question: `If you abandon option C because of overwhelming public opposition to it, why on earth are you going ahead with a capital gains tax?' Does anybody, let alone the members of the Labor Party Caucus, imagine that there is overwhelming support in the Australian community for the introduction of a capital gains tax? Does anybody imagine that any farmer in Australia wants a capital gains tax? No wonder the Labor Party is in such bad odour in the rural community in Australia. It simply does not understand that to impose on farmers capital gains taxes on top of the parlous position of declining markets, the decaying economic position of Australian primary producers and the increased costs is really, to many primary producers in Australia, to sound the final death knell. No wonder the Government is in such bad odour; no wonder there were 40,000 people outside this Parliament. Yet, the Treasurer tries to wriggle out of that by suggesting that in some way in the past I expressed support for a capital gains tax. Mr Keating —You have. Mr HOWARD —The Treasurer is very good at selective quotation as well as a bit of selective policy-making. I did say at the National Press Club two years ago that if one were starting all over again I could understand the arguments people put forward. But I went on to say then and in 1984 as well that the policy of the Opposition was one of total opposition to a capital gains tax. The idea that the Government should impose a capital gains tax on top of the existing taxation structure, with its excessive reliance on personal income tax as a source of revenue, was absolute blind economic madness. Frankly, any government that wanted to indulge in that kind of approach deserved the electoral consequences it would cop. The Treasurer cannot avoid the fact and he cannot dodge the reality, and that is that he set off at the beginning of this year with that almost immortal taxation cart. We all remember the taxation cart. We all remember how he boasted, how he stomped the countryside and said that he alone would deliver fundamental taxation reform. He said that if the package he put up was not accepted, one might as well give away the hope of taxation reform for the rest of the century. He was talking about option C. He was not talking about what will finally emerge from the Caucus mangler this week. He was talking about option C. Option C was thrown out by the Taxation Summit. The Prime Minister then said that we would have, more or less, option C and that we would have a good broadening of the indirect tax base. Of course, everything went quiet for a few weeks and then all of that was thrown out. We were left with absolutely no broadening of the tax base. I said at the end of the Taxation Summit, I repeated it on 13 August and I will say it again today that at the end of the day all we will have out of this whole taxation exercise will be the nasties of option A. Those nasties include a capital gains tax which will harm farmers and small businesses. Those nasties include a total discriminatory attack on fringe benefits which will harm small businesses around Australia to the detriment of the private sector, to the profound advantage of many people in the public sector and certainly to the delights of industrial advocates in the trade union movement who will have a new plaything. That new plaything will be called an arbitrated allowance. An arbitrated allowance will go to the top of all the logs of claims that will be lodged in the future. Bill Kelty and Simon Crean will say: `Don't go for a pay rise; don't go for superannuation; go for an arbitrated allowance'. If one gets an arbitrated allowance, it is not subject to taxation. It is away from the claws of this new fringe benefits tax. It will be the new plaything of the industrial advocates of the trade union movement around Australia. This Treasurer cannot avoid the ignominious fact that he started by promising the earth on taxation reform and he will deliver an absolute wimp. He started by promising that he alone could deliver taxation reform, that he would not be knocked over at the first whiff of grapeshot and that he was no shrinking violet. His Prime Minister misled the Australian public in 1983. He and his Prime Minister misled the Australian public in 1984. They misled the public not only about taxation; they also misled the public about interest rates; and don't they feel embarrassed about that! They have gone on misleading the Australian public. They have repeated that today by saying that the package which will emerge at the end of this week, next week or whenever will represent fundamental reform. The Treasurer and, indeed, the rest of those on the other side of the House ought to be the last people to start lecturing about objectivity and a bipartisan approach to difficult issues because when they were in opposition they never offered any support to the former Government in carrying out difficult economic and other decisions. By contrast, since honourable members opposite have been in government they have had-and they will continue to have in the future-intransigent support from us on those issues where what they are deciding is in accordance with the basic beliefs and principles of the two coalition parties. But honourable members opposite cannot avoid the heavy odium of the Australian public which will descend upon them when they announce that taxation package at the end of this week. The Australian public will know that that taxation package is not a package of reform; it is a package for higher taxes, more taxes, bigger government and higher levels of taxation to fund that bigger government- Mr N. A. Brown —And new taxes. Mr HOWARD —There will be new taxes, higher taxes, capital gains taxes and taxes on fringe benefits which will be totally unfair and totally discriminatory against the private sector. When one puts them against the proud boasts and the proud prediction the Treasurer made at the beginning of this year that he alone would deliver taxation reform, the Australian public will finally and very forcibly be reminded of what a dismal failure on this front the Treasurer has been this year. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(4.07) —We have just witnessed a bit of good old fashioned, cheap politics. It was the sort of thing the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) was never going to have. It was only the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) who was down in the sewers of cheap politics and opportunism. But no, the brave new Liberal Party of Australia-the dries, the rationalists-was going to analyse things. The Leader of the Opposition went to the Press Conference after he did in the honourable member for Kooyong and said: `We will have a look at the issues and we will not condemn the Government until we see them. We will not make judgments about things until we weigh them on their merits'. But what do we find today? Honourable members opposite are getting into the package before they even see it. They are making a judgment before they even know what it is. In their indecent haste they look just as shabby, murky and opportunist as the party leadership they had a week ago. This is the old mob doing the same old thing. They have no ideas, no integrity and no ability. Everybody understands where they are. We are back to the same old tax blackmail of the Australian political system. At least we know that a week into the Howard leadership nothing has changed. The only thing that has changed is that we have a ratbag idea about wages policy. Apart from that, nothing has changed. There will be the same old opportunistic assault upon the Government on any decent thing it does. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition is now trying to carve out a respectable intellectual position on capital gains taxation when we know from his private references and, indeed, his public references at the National Press Club that he is in favour of a capital gains tax. But he is going to do what the honourable member for Kooyong did-that is, resile from his brave statements about means tested benefits to attack the assets test. The Leader of the Opposition is going to resile from his better judgment about capital taxation and from his true beliefs to make a cowardly attack upon a government prepared to do something about taxation. That is what it is all about. What really amuses me and almost makes me spew are the terms of this matter of public importance which state: The erattic, inconsistent and deceitful conduct of the Government on tax reform. We withstood the most appalling campaign of tax blackmail in modern political history. Honourable members will remember the line that as sure as night follows day there will be a capital gains tax, death duties, a wealth tax and all the rest of it. In all of those seven weeks we resisted turning our backs on proposals such as capital gains tax. We kept open all the options and we paid for it with parliamentary seats. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition paid for it by not becoming Leader after the last election; he had to wait until now. We paid with parliamentary seats for the principle of keeping open the right to change the tax system. In other words, we withstood the mealy-mouthed attacks of our opponents over the course of the election campaign on some of the most sensitive taxation issues in order to maintain the right and secure the mandate to make some decent changes to the tax system, and for that we are supposed to earn the title of deceitful. Is that what the Opposition calls deceitful? It should not talk about the capital gains tax in 1983. In 1983 the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said that there would be no capital gains tax in this Parliament. Mr Howard —He did not. Mr KEATING —He did, and there was not one. In the following election campaign, when the Prime Minister was pressed on the same question, he would not close off the possibility of a capital gains tax. The dishonesty of the Leader of the Opposition is not making that point-in fact, in trying to make the point that the claim of 1983 was the same as the claim of 1984-when he knew full well that the failure of the Prime Minister to close off that option meant that we were losing seats and losing support in the public, is the most indecent thing I have seen him do in this Parliament in recent times. Apparently the Leader of the Opposition, now that he is leading this particular rat pack, will not do anything different from the former Leader of the Opposition except that he will have this ratbag wages policy. Apart from that, it is business as usual on the old track of political opportunism. On the contrary, what this Government has done is the very antithesis of deceitfulness. It has kept open all its options and it has been prepared to discuss tax reform with the Party and the nation for nine months. No other government has done that in the history of this Commonwealth. No other government has been prepared to talk honestly and sensibly to the public about the need for tax reform. Of course, we are now getting this attack from the former Treasurer, who let the tax system fall apart in front of his eyes when he was Treasurer of this country for five years. No person in this Parliament, other than myself, knows the shambles the tax system is in better than he does and he knows that it must be fixed. He knows that and I know that. Anybody who occupies the position of Treasurer has to know the shambling state of the tax system. The Leader of the Opposition is saying that he will not allow us to repair it. He should talk about indirect tax. I would like to have got option C up, but what about the direct tax system, the current tax system? The Opposition is trying to say that because we did not get option C up we have no right to fix the direct tax system. What sort of argument is that? We did not get option C up, but we have the right and the duty to fix the direct tax system and make it more fair and decent in the way in which it operates. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition will be in this for all he is worth. He sat there and watched the tax system fall into disrepute. We had the greatest rise in tax avoidance and evasion in this country's history during his period as Treasurer. In the end he was dragooned into doing something about it by the McCabe-Lafranchi report and the Costigan report and by public opinion. Before that, he sat there for five years and did nothing about it. He watched people drift into the higher marginal rates of taxation. He had a chance to knock down the 60 per cent rate and did not do it. People drifted up through the system because of fiscal drag. The Liberal-National Party Government gave tax cuts in 1977, to give back some of the ill-gotten inflationary gains under the progressive system, but the then Treasurer took back the tax cuts in May 1978. He talks about deceitfulness! I have him on record in this Parliament when, as Liberal Treasurer he said yes, he took back the tax cuts because he did not introduce them. That was his rationale. Sir Phillip Lynch as Treasurer had introduced them a few months before, but that did not cut any ice with him; he just grabbed them back. That was his great contribution to the tax system. His Government offered a discretionary tax cut and then took it back. It watched the tax shelters, the criminal paper schemes, and all of the other schemes go unchecked for years, so it became a national scandal of international dimensions. Even in the United States tax avoidance and evasion of the paper variety never assume the proportions they did in Australia. That happened during the Leader of the Opposition's time as Treasurer, yet he has the hide to talk about how we are backing off tax reforms under option C and hiding our light under a bushel. The fact of the matter is that had we not heard through a Cabinet leak that the former Treasurer was trying to get an indirect tax up, we would not have known that he had even tried. Contrast that with the effort this Government has put into the changes-producing a major White Paper, having a major national debate, trying to get popular support for the changes, and getting the discount through the wage system. Mr Howard —You failed. Mr KEATING —Yes, I failed, but I tried, which is more than the honourable member did. The Leader of the Opposition sat back in coward's corner in the Fraser Cabinet and put up the flag, but at the first whiff of grapeshot down came the flag. That was it. Then he went out to his favourite journalist and said: `I tried to get it up, but it was that bloody Malcolm Fraser, who stopped me'. Malcolm Fraser is the most maligned person in the Liberal Party's history. There has been more rewriting of the history of Malcolm Fraser's role by the former Treasurer than anyone could imagine. The truth of the matter is that he could not get a piece of toilet paper or a piece of tissue paper through the Cabinet. We stumped the country to try to get a change to the tax system, and all the Leader of the Opposition does is berate us on the basis that we did not get up an indirect tax of this kind. There were crocodile tears about small business and about how indirect tax will harm small business. The Leader of the Opposition did not mention that he sent hundreds of thousands of small businesses into bankruptcy. He did not mention the fact that thousands upon thousands of Australian lives were dashed as small businesses went to the wall in their hundreds of thousands during the period he was Treasurer. He did not mention the fact that he ran the economy into the ground and them with it. He did not mention the fact that small business has been the principal beneficiary of a pick-up in economic activity. They have been the first people to feel the benefits of more demand, more activity and generally more buoyancy in the economy. If anyone wants to study the gross operating surplus of unincorporated enterprise-in other words, the profits of small business-they will find a dramatic increase in 1983-84 over 1982-83, into 1984-85, and now into 1985-86. So the Leader of the Opposition is not fooling anybody with his crocodile tears for small business. What does he have in store for small business under his wages plan? If he has the opportunity, he will sool the unions straight on to the people who cannot withstand their pressure-small business. They would be the first people to be attacked under the kind of non-centralised system the Leader of the Opposition proposes. He intends to make small business the laboratory mice of the Howard wage experiment, and small business understands that. Mr Carlton —And you are a friend of the cats. Mr KEATING —The honourable member should not talk about taxes. When small business see those lower marginal rates, the Opposition will die. They will understand what they mean. They were ripped off under the former Government by inflation through the scales, with no tax cuts for four years. The Opposition talks to a few people who run small business lobbies and it thinks small business supports it. Small business knows that the Opposition could not run the economy. They know the Opposition bankrupted them; they know it ran them into financial insolvency. They compare their position then with now and with the reform of the tax system, taking out all these ramps and rorts and allowing a decent, clean tax system with lower marginal tax rates. Does the Opposition think that small business will give it any credit? What tax plan does the Opposition have? It does not have any plan. What the Opposition has is the usual cheap Liberal appeal to greed, which is part and parcel of every election campaign. The Opposition always puts forward in one way or another the fistful of dollars in the market place. What I find so telling about this debate is that the week-old, the new-look Opposition is the same old tawdry mob doing the same old tawdry things. It lives to attack any government that is prepared to do the hard things and has had the courage to take the hard decisions on taxation. No doubt when the statement is made and all is revealed to Opposition members, they will be into it trying to make cheap political points for themselves right through. We heard today at Question Time about the manifesto put forward by the former Leader of the National Party that one should get one's hands into the public till and keep them there. That is all the people opposite have ever stood for and it is all they have ever known. They have no principle. They have always been the people who have guaranteed that the Liberal Party shirked its responsibilities when it came to some decent public policy. What the present Leader of the Opposition is now saying is that it is business as usual. All he did was to turf Peacock out but he is going back to the same policies. Let the Leader of the Opposition not try to make an intellectual case about capital gains. We know where he stands. If he wants to go stumping the country on whether this country has a tax system in which decent, ordinary Australians are not ripped off by all the bludgers and parasites and one in which decent people are entitled to a decent go with fairer rates, they will have a very clear choice-a vote for us or a vote for coalition members who have always been cheats, cheats, cheats. They will always be cheats, cheats, cheats, and will always defend cheats, cheats, cheats. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Treasurer's time has expired. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(4.22) —There is not a person in this country, including honourable members opposite, who has any confidence in this Government's tax policy, and the reason is simple. Nobody-including honourable members opposite-knows what the Government's tax policy is. The Treasurer (Mr Keating), who was just in the chamber, has been talking about his view of tax. We have been reading in the Press lately what he chooses to leak. To add balance to this debate this afternoon, the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) who is about to speak second for the Government provides the Left's view, the tomato Left's view, of tax reform. Somehow between the view of the Treasurer and the view of the honourable member for Calwell we have to decide what this Government intends to do on tax. It is no wonder that people in this country do not know where this Government is going on tax. Just look at the antics of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) at the last election. He ran round the country and at a radio station was put under a it of pressure on capital gains tax. He said: `We are not planning a capital gains tax-definitely no plans for a capital gains tax. If we are by some chance planning a capital gains tax, it definitely will not include the family home'. By the time he got from eastern Australia to Perth, he was under a bit more pressure and some announcer on talk-back radio asked: `What are you going to do about tax reform?' The Prime Minister did not know, he ummed and ah'd for a while, and the announcer said: `What about having a summit?' What happened? We had a tax summit and six months of trauma while the Government led us down the garden path to the summit. The Treasurer with his views, which are diametrically opposed to the tomato Left, started to leak what was to happen at the summit. We had option A, option B and option C. Every option contained a capital gains tax-the thing the Prime Minister said they were not considering and, if they were considering it, it would not affect the family home. Mr Howe —What is wrong with democratic discussion? Mr BLUNT —The Minister for Social Security would know all about the family home, which is exempted from tax. This Government introduced an assets test and exempted the family home. We are up to version five of the assets test, and it is because of the Government's inconsistent approach to capital. The Government does not understand it. Perhaps it should think about the consequences of bringing in a capital gains tax and proposing exemptions for, say, the family home. Has the Government thought about the consequences of such a move? Exactly the same problems faced by the Government on the assets test will have to be faced with a capital gains tax. Are we to have a resurrection of the curtilage? Is that to be redefined? How much is the curtilage around the family home in the city, and what is the curtilage in regional Australia? When the Government applies the capital gains tax-a tax that the Minister for Social Security and the rest of the Left wish to introduce-at whatever rates that are introduced, marginal or otherwise, what does it intend to do? How will it differentiate between a family home on a suburban block and a family home in regional Australia? Obviously, the Government has not thought about that issue. The great problem is that this Government has not thought about issues at all. Perhaps the reason the Government does not know when it will announce its tax policy is that it has not had a chance to talk to the Australian Council of Trade Unions. I am told that the Treasurer left the chamber to go and rent a motel room because he has Simon Crean and Bill Kelty coming to town. That is where the negotiations take place-in motel rooms. I suggest that if the Minister for Social Security wants to have an influence on these negotiations and to protect the interests of the left wing, he had better scurry out of the chamber also and join the Treasurer. That motel room is where the decision will be made. The trouble with the Labor Party is that it just does not understand; it does not know where it is going. It seems to have a blind, ideological approach to tax reform. It is determined to have capital taxes and fringe benefit taxes. What about the logic of this Government at the tax summit when it was to introduce fringe benefits tax and said that it was to apply also to the public sector? It said that the Government would pay the tax in the public sector, but would make the employers pay the tax for the private sector. What sort of confused, woolly thinking is that? The private sector would have to come up with the cash and make the payments, but the public sector would involve a book-keeping entry. That is the logic of the Left, the logic of the Labor Party. Honourable members opposite do not understand the basic economics that make this country run. They do not understand what makes people want to work, accumulate wealth and keep working. Let us go back and look at the fringe benefits tax which the Government is now proposing. The Government thinks it applies to millionaires, but there are hundreds of thousands, indeed millions, of people in this country who have fringe benefits. Let us look at the impact of such a tax on regional and rural Australia. Have honourable members opposite thought about workers who are in the Australian Workers Union, the pastoral industry workers? They get meat at reduced prices, subsidised housing, free electricity, subsidised rent. What will those workers say about a fringe benefits tax? That is why the Minister should rush out to that motel room and be part of the discussion, for those workers will not like such a tax at all. Let us look at the matter a little more deeply. Let us look at the impact of the fringe benefits tax on the capacity of Australia to develop its mineral resources. These resources are not conveniently located in metropolitan Australia. In the majority of cases they are located in the remote areas of Australia. To attract people to work those resources outside the metropolitan area and to work to contribute to the development of this country, an incentive must be provided. Have honourable members opposite ever heard of a company town that is necessary to develop a major mineral resource? No, they have not. What will their attitude be to a fringe benefit tax on people who work in those company towns? What about the incentive provided for people to go away from major population areas and work to provide a decent education for their children? What about the incentive and benefit provided in terms of education fees? I can see the faces of honourable members opposite dropping. They do not know what they are getting themselves into. The Treasurer talks about profitability in business and how all business can afford the same tax. A moment's thought will tell him not all businesses are equally profitable. The Treasurer quotes obscure statistics about public sector profits. He does not quote many statistics about the small business sector's profitability because it varies between industries. He is to bring in a capital gains tax but we do not know what the rate is to be. I imagine the Left has not negotiated with the Right and whatever else, and no doubt that will take place later today. One rate of tax will apply across the board. What about the businesses that cannot afford to pay it? What about the people who have already been socked to leg by this Government's lump sum tax on superannuation and who are hoping that perhaps, because they have been working all their lives and have developed some goodwill in their business, it will represent their superannuation? No, the capital gains tax will do away with that as fast as one can say `tomato Left'. This Government is confused; it does not know where it is going or what it is doing. The Treasurer has the preferred position. He has had several. He had option C. It was to be option C or nothing, but now it is to be something else. He has been leaking all week all over the place from Port Moresby back to Australia as to what we are to have. Furthermore, contrary opinions have been leaked from the Left and from the Right, and there have been all sorts of confused reports. The consequence is that the people of Australia have lost all confidence in what will happen. They do not know where they are going. It is a wonder that the dollar has not dropped another 10c. Surveys show that 89 per cent of people do not want a fringe benefits tax and 92 per cent do not want a capital gains tax. The United States Chamber of Commerce has said that if a tax credit scheme is introduced-and that is something else that the Treasurer has been talking about-300 United States companies will probably pull up and leave this country. What will that do to the dollar? The Treasurer must be trying to make sure that they reclaim his medal. What about the impact of the Government's negative gearing policies? What will that do? What about the discriminatory approach to quarantining losses on farms? The Government intends to prevent offsetting farm losses against any other income. What about the discrimination that that applies? Will it apply to the public sector? Will Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd no longer be able to offset losses in one area against profits in another? What about someone who owns a butcher's shop? I do not know who around here would own a butcher's shop, but what about his ability to offset losses in one area against perhaps a greengrocer's shop that he owns in another area? What sort of balanced approach to economic management or taxation is that? The whole thing is a joke. This Government is confused, erratic and inconsistent and the Prime Minister is deceitful in his approach to taxation reform. He is deceitful in telling the people of the country where he is taking them and which road he is leading them down. It is not a road he is leading them down, he is leading them up the garden path and he is being aided and abetted by the Treasurer. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(4.32) —After that formidable speech from the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), all I can say is that if this is all the argument that the Opposition can put forward on tax reform, we will win the next election very easily. I have some bad news for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). Let me tell him that news. The Australian Labor Party tomorrow will finalise its deliberations and it will present its package to the Australian community in a totally unified way. The package is endorsed by the overwhelming majority of the Party and it is a package, as has been mentioned by the Treasurer (Mr Keating), which gives us the most comprehensive taxation reform that this country has ever had. It is much more comprehensive than any taxation reform ever attempted by the Fraser Government. Whenever the issue of tax reform came up while that Government was in office, it would never embrace it because it was too difficult. Now, every aspect of taxation has been looked at, and scrutinised and will be dealt with in this package which will come before the people. It is extraordinary that the Opposition has the impertinence to put forward a matter of public importance today before it has even seen the package. It accuses the Government of deceit before it has even seen the package. What sort of morality is that? What sort of rationality is that? That is the morality and the rationality of the gutter. We are talking about deceit. The Leader of the Opposition has the temerity to talk about deceit in relation to taxation measures. Is this not the same man who reimposed taxes six months after his own Government had cut them? That Government went to the people with the disgraceful slogan `Labor gives you nothing: Liberal gives you tax cuts'. It offered a fistful of dollars and yet six months later the former Treasurer, the current Leader of the Opposition, took it away. How can he possibly be trusted in these matters? Yet he has the temerity to come into this House and talk about deceit and deceitful procedures. I will tell the House about deceit and deceitful procedures. In the seven years of the Fraser Government every deceptive bastard in this country-every deceptive person in this country-who wanted to get into tax evasion and taxation rorts was supported by the previous Government, the present Opposition Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member for Calwell has just used a word that was unparliamentary. He substituted another word, but for the record I would like him to withdraw the word that was unparliamentary. Dr THEOPHANOUS —I withdraw. There were full page advertisements in the newspapers telling people how to get into tax avoidance schemes and how to save themselves hundreds of thousands of dollars. Was the Leader of the Opposition blind at that time when he was Treasurer? Did he not see these advertisements? Of course he did, and he knew very well what he was doing. He was pandering to the tax avoidance industry and now he comes into this House and talks about deceit. There was never a greater deception than the one that took place at that time. There has been a great debate on taxation policy and the Opposition has asked why we have had such a long debate. Is there something fundamentally wrong with having a great debate in a democracy? What is wrong with debating? What is wrong with putting our options to the people in a democracy? I thought that that was part of the principle of democracy. Obviously, many Opposition members have not ever heard of it or do not understand it. It is part of the principle of democracy, that people should debate and that the Government should put its options to the people so that they can be considered. This is especially so in a matter as important as taxation. Surely the Australian people were entitled to hear and understand the proposals that we were putting forward and give their point of view. Yet the Leader of the Opposition attacks the idea of the tax summit. He has attacked the idea of having people from all walks of life coming to this chamber to discuss their points of view on tax reform. According to him, there is something fundamentally wrong with that. What is wrong with it? Are we supposed to make decisions behind closed doors without any consultation? That is the kind of thing that took place within the Fraser Government. One could arrive at the Parliament one day and find that even the former Government's own back benchers did not know what had happened. The Opposition has the temerity to criticise the big debate in the Labor Party and the fact that everyone's point of view is being taken into account. Of course everyone's point of view should be taken into account. That is part of the democratic process. The idea that someone's personal position has changed or that it might be compromised is not some kind of historic occurrence. The Treasurer's original position had to be changed. So what? The rest of us participated in the process in a democratic way and there is nothing wrong with that. Paul Keating has been man enough to recognise the situation and to accept the collective view. That is something that Opposition members do not know about. The Opposition suggests that there is something fundamentally wrong with this process. Let me tell Opposition members about the process. Not only did we have a tax summit, but also afterwards, lengthy discussions took place-not merely in the Cabinet. A special Cabinet committee was appointed and all groups that had further representations to make to the Government were able to make them to that committee. After all the deliberations, there was a marathon three-day meeting of the full Ministry, not merely the Cabinet, in which these matters were discussed. Every Minister had the opportunity to consider what was going on, to consider his or her input to the process. Every point of view of every department and every Minister was taken into account. What is wrong with that? The Opposition has attacked this process, saying that it is deceitful. What sort of meaning of `deceit' is this? Deceit is the sort of process where one goes behind people's backs and where one keeps decisions out of the public or the parliamentary arena. Let us look at the Opposition. It is trying to wriggle out of the question of tax reform. I will tell members of the Opposition what they can expect. One day the Leader of the Opposition will come into this House without consulting any of them and he will tell them what he is going to do about tax reform. He will tell them what is going to happen and then they will have to try to sell it to the electorate. When they try to sell his policy to the electorate the public will compare it with the magnificent and comprehensive package that has been developed by the Labor Government. Does the Opposition know what will happen to it when it tries to sell its half-baked ideas to the electorate? I will tell honourable members. The electorate will totally reject the Opposition because firstly, it has no credibility in these matters-it went back on its promises and broke them-and, secondly and equally importantly, its ideas would hurt the vast majority of the people. The Opposition's ideas are not fair; they are not based on principles of equality and fairness, the way this package has been based. We have heard a lot about a capital gains tax and how the Government's tax package will be a package of the nasties. The only people who will think it is a package of nasties-a phrase which the Leader of the Opposition keeps repeating-are those who have been avoiding their tax responsibilities. They are the ones who will think that the package is nasty. It will be nasty for them-let me tell honourable members that-and it is about time that it was. Anyone, no matter what his income-from the highest to the lowest income earner-who has been paying his taxes or who has genuine good will in relation to paying his taxes has nothing to fear from the tax proposals. They are fair and equitable. They are a comprehensive package of measures which, as I have said, will substantially transform the whole of the taxation system. We have heard a lot about how business will be affected by the capital gains tax. There has been no reference at all to the massive concessions which business will get. Let us wait for and look at the overall package and let sensible business people make a judgment about its overall impact. What will they see? They will see that it is a more honest, more fair package and one which makes substantial concessions to them, especially by way of the imputation of dividends, which is a massive concession to the business sector. We do not hear anything about it from the Opposition. All we hear about is the capital gains tax. A comprehensive package will be presented and it will be accepted by the Australian people as being a fair package, one which will transform the tax system. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The debate is concluded. (Budget Debate) Debate resumed from 12 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 benefits; (6) it fails to move towards the deregulation of labour markets required to give all Australians the chance for a job, and (7) it burdens Australia with the threat of continued high interest rates which hurt not only home- buyers but hit business investment and jobs. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory)(4.43) —This is a Budget without any sense of national purpose. It came as no surprise that the works most urgently needed in my electorate were not on the list of projects this year. Northern Territorians have long given up any expectation that this Government might do what it said it would do during the 1983 and 1984 election campaigns, least of all the $70m-or was it $120m?-the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) promised during the 1983 Territory election campaign to spend on the Kakadu National Park. The list of broken promises has meant that Territory residents greet the Government's promises with ennui. We are weary of the mix of open hostility, grudging assurances and general unconcern that have marked this Government's dealings with my electorate. The Northern Territory, indeed all of north Australia, waits, biding its time to use the expression of the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman)-for the return of a Liberal-National coalition Government before it expects a fair shake from the Commonwealth. That is because the Northern Territory is a place where most people are in small business, rural industry, the service industries or mining. As all Australia is well aware, the Northern Territory mining industry has been singled out for discrimination on at least two fronts-land rights and uranium-while the small business, rural and service sectors have all been targeted through this Government's economic policies for the sort of special treatment which is driving more and more people out of business and which is infuriating the real achievers in this country, the primary producers and the small businessmen. However, let me assure honourable members opposite that, despite comments from the office of Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) that the north would be depopulated with `a machine gun if necessary'-I use his words and he still holds office under the Crown, despite having spoken about Australians in that way-and all the broken promises, the Territory continues its population growth and its industry and business expansion at a rate which is only marginally slowed by the myopic vision of this Government, which will always cut back where it least hurts its own short term political ends. It was no surprise that the Darwin Airport project was deferred. The Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) should say what he means. We know what he meant. He did not mean a review of the project; he meant that it would be cancelled until further notice and this Budget confirms that. The soft-shoe shuffle performed by the Minister, after the expenditure of nearly $20m on design and basic works, has set us back to exactly where we were five years ago. The Darwin Airport development reappraisal study sets out a number of options for consideration. In brief these are for civil aviation at the northern, south-west, south-central and existing sites. Well done, Mr Minister. He has correctly identified exactly the same options as were considered in the initial appraisals of 1980. For various reasons, which the Minister can certainly look up in his files, that study resulted in a decision to site the new facilities on the northern side. That original study involved civil and defence considerations and took into account the views of residents nearby. It also considered the likely future use of the airport, tourist projections and the requirements of the Royal Australian Air Force. In short, the necessary studies were done half a decade ago. The Minister is simply prevaricating. A lot of people have invested a lot of money in the Territory on the basis of the Commonwealth's commitment to a new airport. They deserve some certainty; they should not be victimised. It would be far better for the Minister to save everyone's time by stating the obvious truth: the Darwin Airport project is off for the term of this Government. Tourism is vital to the development of the Territory's economy. In the past few weeks there have been media reports of the Northern Territory Government's future liabilities in relation to the construction of the Yulara tourist resort near Ayers Rock backing the construction of Sheraton Hotels in Darwin and Alice Springs. Tourism is the only short term prospect in the Territory for employment generation in any numbers. Hobbled as it is economically by the Aboriginal land rights Act, by this Government's discriminatory uranium policy, by this Government's dishonouring of its commitments to build the Alice Springs-Darwin railway and to provide a new international and domestic air terminal in Darwin, the Territory had little option, while doing all it can-for instance, by the construction of the $650m Alice Springs-Darwin gas pipeline to broaden and diversify its economic base-to push heavily into tourism in the short to medium term. What State is effectively denied any economic benefit from over 50 per cent of its land area, including two-thirds of its coast line? While there is raving and ranting in the ranks opposite about the Territory being overfunded, honourable members should remember these three facts: Firstly, it is this Parliament that is responsible for the legislation which has economically crippled the Northern Territory; secondly, the Commonwealth Grants Commission has examined Territory finances annually since self-government and has continually reported in a generally favourable way; thirdly, Federal funding of the Territory is essentially based on the Federal Government's cost of administration of the Northern Territory pre-1978 but the Territory's share of revenue has risen from one per cent at that time to 20 per cent now, and it is growing. The single most important factor upsetting earlier hotel feasiblities and predictions has been this Government's administration of the economy. This government has constantly claimed that it could and would hold down interest rates. Even honourable members opposite recognise that the fall in the value of the Australian dollar had been due primarily to the Government's inability to assure the international market that it can control union demands. In order to prevent the dollar from sinking further, exacerbating balance of payment problems, the Government has been forced to adopt a tight monetary policy, thus driving up interest rates-so much so that real interest rates now stand at around 10 per cent. Just as this situation has caused very real problems for all borrowers, it had had an impact on the position of the Yulara resort and the Alice Springs-Darwin Sheraton Hotels. When interest rates return to normal levels the pressure will be lifted but in the short term debt servicing obligations are higher than expected. On the other side, it is clear that the marketing campaign around the three Sheraton hotels has for the last 12 months simply been left to take care of itself. In a general sense, the Northern Territory tourism marketing campaign has been Australia's most outstandingly successful. The 1984 figures from the Australian Travel Industry Association show a 21 per cent increase in room occupancy at Northern Territory hotels and motels compared with an Australian average of just 7.2 per cent, despite the addition in the Territory in 12 months of another 2,300 rooms. Accommodation takings increased by a very encouraging 30 per cent. All the other elements of Yulara, including the Four Seasons Hotel, are recording occupancy rates of over 90 per cent. They have all been open longer than the Sheraton Hotel. Only the five-star accommodation level is recording below expected occupancy rates. This is consistent with the experience of similar up-market tourist accommodation in Sydney, Melbourne and other centres. I understand that the Adelaide Hilton, owned by the South Australian taxpayers, has not in three years of operation broken the 50 per cent occupancy factor. Yet, in the Yulara Sheraton's first 10 months of operation, it has had a 39 per cent occupancy rate. This year the Northern Territory Tourist Commission has set a target of 60,000 five-star customers to lift occupancy rates at the top end of the market. These highly successful figures overlook some of the financial hurdles that tourism still has to overcome in the Northern Territory, more than anywhere else in Australia. First, it has no long-established financial track record. This is a legacy of 70 years of benign Commonwealth neglect, with only $150,000 being spent on tourist promotion in 1977, the last year of Commonwealth administration. The practical consequence is that for any tourist establishment with over 100 beds, the proponents must look to the Northern Territory Government for grants or guarantees. Over the years, all of Australia's much vaunted financial institutions have been invited to put their money on the Territory's future tourist prospects. Without government backing, all have declined to do so. Unfortunately, the Territory was too late to get on the gravy train of that patron saint of hopeless cases, the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund. Needs must when the devil drives, and after several years of casting around the Territory Government found that the only way to secure the construction of Yulara and the Sheraton at Alice Springs and Darwin was to stand behind them. Otherwise, those constructions would never happen, so cautious are our home-grown financial moguls. Suffice to say that out feasibility studies were carried out by nationally and internationally recognised firms. They were not questioned by leading trading banks but now, because of high interest rates and slow off the ground marketing, they are not generating revenue as quickly as expected. In the case of the Alice Springs Sheraton, the Austrlaian Industry Development Corporation, a Federal statutory authority, was convinced of the viability of the project and agreed to become the end owner in an agreement made in late 1983. The essential problem is that of marketing. I believe it can and will be overcome by vigorous and sustained action. In short, the Territory tourism industry is in very good shape overall with massive-and mean massive-growth figures. The Territory Tourist Commission is recognised in the industry as a market leader. Like members from South Australia, Victoria, Western Australia and Tasmania-where State governments have directly or indirectly , such as by using Australian Public Service superannuation funds, underwritten tourist projects-I hope that when the Treasurer (Mr Keating) delivers the third part of his Budget address, the nasties, he will keep in mind the very real effects that his policy decisions will have on the biggest growth industry in Australia today. On another matter, as honourable members will be aware almost one quarter of my constituents are Aboriginal people. In their interests I raise an issue which concerns them. Since the advent of this Government, the agencies which continue to direct and control Aboriginal policy have rendered their administration of that responsibility increasingly ineffective. A recent example of this has been the apparent Aboriginal Development Commission decision to cease funding the Central Australian Aboriginal Pastoralists Association. That association met with great success in co-ordinating vital controls on Aboriginal-owned properties, including fencing and disease control. Through the association special Commonwealth employment program employment has been provided. Respect has been earned by the association in its dealings with both government and private agencies. I am now told that funds are to cease, the assets are to be sold, and the association is to be disbanded. This is just another result of the machiavellian priorities of certain people working in this area, ensuring their personal survival in the hotbed of the Aboriginal agency industry. The funds to CAAPA should be restored so that it can continue its work-tested and proven by no less than four studies in the past 12 months-on which more money was spent than the Association is asking for in subsidy this financial year. I ask the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) to ensure that this association does not become another victim of the office politics played out in the government funded agencies of Aboriginal advancement. I turn to another area of my vast and diverse constituency. Honourable members may not realise that it extends 4,000 kilometres west of Darwin into the Indian Ocean. On Christmas Island last week, we saw another personal triumph for the wages policy of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), almost akin to his successes in retailing and petrol. Until the late 1970s the Christmas Island phosphate deposits were worked largely by labour recruited from Singapore and Malaysia at wage rates far in excess of those paid in their home countries, but less than Australian wage levels at that time. Nobody could deny that Christmas Island was the last outpost of colonialism, but even on the lower wages, the Christmas Island work force received a pretty fair shake, as there was no personal taxation, no local government charges or school fees, house rental was free and messing facilities were provided at a nominal charge. Under these conditions labour was substituted for capital, with the phosphate extraction process hopelessly overmanned on the one hand, and hopelessly archaic on the other. Following a period of industrial unrest, enter Bob Hawke wearing his Australian Council of Trade Unions President's hat in July, 1979. Hero Hawke, as some Island union leaders described him, was instrumental in getting the islanders wage parity with Australian workers. He was warned by the mining company management and Liberal Government Ministers responsible that this ACTU President's hat was in fact an executioner's mask as the island would not remain economically viable under the new wage deal. Last week Prime Minister Hawke announced that the Island is to close down next year because-wait for it-the operation lost $3.5m last year. So a marginal industry is wrecked, Australian farmers lose a ready source of fertiliser, the Australian National Line loses cargo contracts, and several hundred people lose their jobs. Their dependants are also thrown onto the scrap heap. Well done, Mr Prime Minister! A grateful country salutes you! Although I no longer have a specific responsibility in the area of local government, it seems appropriate that I give honourable members some benefit of the insights I have gained into the operations of the local government Department. In my term as shadow Minister I visited some hundreds of local government councils, and without exception the main concern was the uneven and ad hoc treatment handed out by this Government on funding matters. It should hardly be necessary for me to explain the cause of that dissatisfaction. It is based, quite properly, on the dual and contrary decisions first to set up an inquiry into local government finances, and then totally pre-empt that committee's findings through the decision in May to cut back the personal income tax sharing arrangement. One might have thought that with the new departmental status of the local government office, that the third tier of government could expect more sympathetic treatment from this Government. This prompts me to repeat in this House the question that I posed to a local government conference in my home electorate last month, which, I understand, has been taken up more recently by the Queensland Minister for Local Government. As honourable members will be aware, local government was elevated to departmental status by this Government only last December-mostly it would seem to find a place for the fast-fading former Minister for Territories and Local Government when the Territories portfolio was sliced off his responsibilities. But honourable members may not be aware that since its elevation, the Office of Local Government staff budget has moved from around $125,000 to an estimated $1.4m for this financial year, and has employed at least an additional 33 staff-an increase of about 800 per cent on original staffing levels. I do not criticise that per se-but I am forced to question the return on investment to the taxpayer, and to local government, when one takes into account the raw deal that local government received from the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in May. But this Government seems to think that the Public Service is merely an employment agency, with its 14,000 odd Public Service appointments since it came to office, and that it has no responsibility to ensure that there is a return to the taxpayer for funding such increases. Thus it does no harm to ask what these extra people have been doing for their collective million dollars plus of public money. First, of course, they carried on doing all the things that had been done before by a staff of just five people, before there was a department. There seems to be just one new area of work-something called the local government development program, which will cost taxpayers $5m this year and, according to the Budget Papers, will `introduce a range of support services to local government'. But it seems that of these support services, three are almost entirely for pure research, two are concerned with training of councillors and council employees at existing agencies such as the Canberra College of Advanced Education and the other is simply an award scheme to innovative local governments. Therefore, I ask the Minister to provide to honourable members some further explanation of the functions of this new Department, which may alleviate my concerns and provide some detail of the benefits to local government-because the salaries are presumably siphoned away from funds otherwise available to local authorities. I hope it will fully justify the further expansion of big government under Labor. I turn now to Mudginberri. Members should be aware of the full effect this Government's duplicity over Mudginberri has had on all employers and business people in Australia and, in particular, on the economy of the Northern Territory. As a result of events over Mudginberri, employers have to question the relevance of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the entire centralised industrial system. It has been only too clear that this Government has refused to support the rule of law. The plain facts are that this Government refused, by its duplicity, to provide export meat inspections, despite the fact that Jay and Jan Pendarvis had the full backing of both the Commission and the courts. To frustrate normal abattoirs operations, the Government moved the inspectors away from the abattoir, where they had lived until recently, to Jabiru so that to go to work they had to cross the picket line. The feeble excuse was that the Government did not want to inflame the dispute. Incredibly, the responsible Minister, claimed that industrial conditions should decide whether the law of the land applied. In short, the Minister believes that some favoured sections of the community-the union movement-are above the law. Is it any wonder that employers are losing faith in the accord and all that goes with it. The latest arrangement, the accord mark II between the Government and the unions, is presented as a fait accompli to the Arbitration Commission, making future Commission decisions on indexation, productivity and wage fixing guidelines almost irrelevant. That leaves employers out in the cold. It means that future argument before the Commission is pointless and it means that the Government intends the Commission to be no more than a rubber stamp for the deals cooked up between the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. There is absolutely nothing in this Budget for the people of the Northern Territory whom I represent. There is simply bad news. It has been bad news for them ever since the election of the Hawke Government, and I certainly will continue to work and fight to overturn this Government so that the people of the Northern Territory and of northern Australia in general receive a fair share from what is, after all, supposed to be the Commonwealth of Australia. Mr FREE(Lindsay)(5.03) —When I heard the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) speak of stifling initiative and machiavellian priorities in the Northern Territory, naturally I thought he was referring to his own period as Chief Minister in the Territory, and in particular to his role in the seizure of the Darwin casino from Federal Hotels Ltd. Apparently he was not, but I think that goes a long way towards explaining his present position on the back bench. Very few people have the honour in this place, as the honourable member did, of delivering his maiden speech from the despatch box. Even fewer honourable members have made the transition to the back bench as rapidly as the honourable member. I now refer to a couple of aspects of this year's Budget on which I would like to comment. The first of these aspects is the funding of children's services. On 14 May this year the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced expenditure savings of some $1,259m. One element of the statement included a reduction in the forward estimates for children's services. Public reaction to this announcement was considerable. It was almost universally uninformed and, not infrequently, quite hysterical. I want to take some time to examine the funding of children's services with less passion and perhaps with more illumination than the Government's detractors have done so far. Since the mid-1970s the pre-school sector has received a Commonwealth block grant of $33m. This amount has been eroded by inflation to the point where the States contribute almost five-sixths of the total. It is the Commonwealth's contention that pre-school education is part of the State systems and is therefore a funding responsibility of the States. Most of the States accept it as such. I believe all of the States will move in next year and assume total funding responsibility for pre-schools. I am pleased to observe that as recently as last Friday week the New South Wales Government announced that it would meet the difference. The provision of child care, on the other hand, of course will remain an important area of Commonwealth expenditure. On 31 May the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) reaffirmed the Government's pre-election commitment to develop 20,000 new places over the next three years. Funding for the first thousand places, at a cost of $4.9m, is included in the Budget. The total three-year cost will be $107m. The first year of the program will provide an opportunity to assess needs, to plan and to make forward approvals. The new places will consist of 12,000 extra centre-based places, 4,000 new family day care places, 3,000 occasional care places and the equivalent of 1,000 places for special services. In addition, there will be expanded provision for before and after school care and vacation care. In particular, the additional occasional care places will go towards meeting the needs of women not in the work force. This three-year program adds to a record of which this Government is already justly proud. This Budget, apart from the provisions of the three-year plan, allocates $130.5m to children's services-more than double the provision in the last Howard Budget. This is an outstanding achievement-an achievement appreciated in my electorate in particular and across the whole of western Sydney where the need for children's services is acute. As a member of the outer western children's services committee, and in recent years its chairman, I place on record my appreciation of the attention which this Government, and particularly the Minister for Community Services, has paid to the needs of western Sydney. Of course, children's services will remain a difficult area to fund in the sense that while needs are virtually unlimited, resources are always finite. As an illustration, all of the 13 child care centres in my electorate-and most of them have been built in recent years-have long waiting lists. As at August, 2,031 families were awaiting long day care places and 2,437 were awaiting pre-school places. Obviously we in western Sydney will be looking for our share of those 20,000 extra places. It is also clear that if existing places are to be maintained and new ones provided that users, particularly those on high incomes, will need to provide a greater contribution. When one recognises that the existing system provides almost as much in maximum free relief as a single pensioner receives to live on, or that high income families receive more in free relief than allowances currently paid to permit students from low income families to complete secondary education, it is obviously time to overhaul the free relief system. I am pleased to see that this overhaul is now taking place in accordance with the five principles set out by the Minister. Those principles are the need to maintain standards, to keep services affordable to low and moderate income earners, to continue special concessions if more than one child from a family is in care, to cater for users across the income spectrum and to provide incentives to operators to contain costs. The new arrangements, in line with these five principles, will promote greater equity throughout the system. Moving up the age scale, I want to make some comments on Priority One: Young Australia-the Government's strategy for young people which, of course, is the centrepiece of this Budget. Priority One is a strategy designed to promote greater opportunities in employment, education and training for the youth of Australia. These opportunities will be provided through four major reforms. The first reform is the Australian traineeship system-a system aimed primarily at 16 and 17-year-old school leavers to provide them with 12 months of work-based experience and training. This is the first real attempt to break the catch-22 confronting many school leavers-school leavers who cannot get a job without experience but who cannot get experience without a job. The Australian traineeship system will break this vicious cycle. The second great reform under Priority One provides for expanded opportunities in education. The Budget provides for a further increase in higher education places, bringing to over 20,000 the additional places over the triennium, funded by an increase of over 8 per cent for the tertiary sector. A similar percentage increase in funding is provided for schools, with the proviso that the States and non-government authorities agree to at least maintain their existing commitments. The third reform of Priority One is the provision of vastly improved support systems for young people, including a new community-based training program, an increase in the Budget for the community youth support scheme, funds for the training of youth workers, volunteer community service projects and for the Commonwealth Employment Service for improved services to youth. The fourth reform is the provision of new income support arrangements for youth. Over the next three years, the present mishmash of income support for youth arrangements will be rationalised to provide three common basic rates. The new system will remedy many of the defects of the present system, especially the defect that gives rise to the common and genuine complaint that the maximum allowance for secondary students is only half that available under unemployment benefits. The new system will remove what has been for many a disincentive to continue education beyond the compulsory years. It will accelerate existing moves towards greater participation in the decision to go on to complete a full secondary education, and that trend has already been quite dramatic. Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table supplied by the Parliamentary Library showing apparent retention rates in secondary schools from 1973 to 1984. Leave granted. The table read as follows- APPARENT RETENTION RATES AUSTRALIA Males Females Persons GOVERNMENT 1st to Final Yr 1973... 29.2 26.6 27.9 1974... 27.6 26.9 27.3 1975... 28.4 28.8 28.6 1976... 28.6 30.7 29.6 1977... 27.8 31.9 29.7 1978... 27.0 32.3 29.6 1979... 26.1 31.9 28.9 1980... 25.2 31.9 28.4 1981... 25.1 32.1 28.5 1982... 25.9 33.6 29.6 1983... 30.1 37.6 33.7 * 1984 (prelim)... . . . . . . 1st to 2nd Last Year 1973... 45.1 42.9 44.1 1974... 43.0 42.7 42.8 1975 46.2 46.3 46.2 1976... 46.6 48.5 47.5 1977... 45.7 50.4 48.0 1978... 46.3 51.5 48.8 1979... 45.0 51.3 48.0 1980... 45.3 52.4 48.7 1981... 45.9 53.8 49.7 1982... 48.3 55.1 51.6 1983... 56.4 60.4 58.3 * 1984 (prelim)... . . . . . . 1st to 3rd Last Yr 1973... 80.2 79.2 79.7 1974... 79.5 79.7 79.6 1975... 82.7 82.9 82.8 1976... 84.9 84.9 84.9 1977... 85.5 86.6 86.1 1978... 86.5 87.6 87.1 1979... 86.3 88.3 87.3 1980... 87.5 89.6 88.5 1981... 88.0 90.5 89.2 1982... 89.9 91.4 90.7 1983... 92.2 92.6 92.4 * 1984 (prelim)... . . . . . . lllllllllllllllllNON-GOVERNMENT 1st to Final Yr 1973... 58.0 44.2 50.8 1974... 58.3 47.0 52.5 1975... 57.9 49.1 53.4 1976... 57.5 50.7 54.0 1977... 57.5 52.5 54.9 1978... 55.5 53.6 54.5 1979... 56.0 54.8 55.4 1980... 56.9 55.4 56.1 1981... 57.0 56.8 56.9 1982... 57.3 59.6 58.5 1983... 61.7 63.2 62.5 * 1984 (prelim)... . . . . . . 1st to 2nd Last Year 1973... 68.0 59.8 63.7 1974... 67.9 61.6 64.7 1975 67.9 63.6 65.7 1976... 69.7 66.2 67.9 1977... 67.4 67.6 67.5 1978... 69.0 70.1 69.6 1979... 70.6 70.7 70.6 1980... 71.0 73.3 72.2 1981... 71.5 75.5 73.5 1982... 74.0 78.0 76.1 1983... 78.4 81.3 79.9 * 1984 (prelim)... . . . . . . 1st to 3rd Last Yr 1973... 91.1 89.3 90.2 1974... 91.4 90.7 91.0 1975... 92.5 92.1 92.3 1976... 92.7 92.5 92.6 1977... 93.1 94.0 93.6 1978... 94.6 95.7 95.2 1979... 96.3 97.3 96.8 1980... 96.6 97.7 97.1 1981... 98.1 99.2 98.6 1982... 98.6 100.9 99.8 1983... 99.2 100.6 99.9 * 1984 (prelim)... . . . . . . CATHOLIC 1st to Final Yr 1973... 44.1 32.0 37.7 1974... 44.6 34.1 39.1 1975... 45.9 36.4 40.9 1976... 44.9 38.5 41.5 1977... 46.0 40.7 43.2 1978... 44.4 42.0 43.1 1979... 44.7 43.6 44.1 1980... 45.6 44.1 44.8 1981... 45.5 45.6 45.6 1982... 46.6 48.3 47.5 1983... 50.5 52.1 51.3 * 1984 (prelim)... . . . . . . 1st to 2nd Last Year 1973... 54.6 46.6 50.4 1974... 55.2 48.5 51.7 1975 55.6 51.6 53.5 1976... 58.1 54.6 56.3 1977... 56.5 56.3 56.4 1978... 57.5 59.3 58.4 1979... 59.1 59.8 59.5 1980... 59.6 62.2 60.9 1981... 61.0 64.5 62.8 1982... 63.6 67.7 65.7 1983... 69.3 70.8 70.1 * 1984 (prelim)... . . . . . . 1st to 3rd Last Yr 1973... 85.4 84.2 84.8 1974... 86.2 85.8 86.0 1975... 87.6 88.1 87.9 1976... 88.8 89.0 88.9 1977... 88.6 90.3 89.5 1978... 90.7 92.3 91.5 1979... 92.0 93.7 92.9 1980... 93.2 93.8 93.5 1981... 94.7 95.9 95.3 1982... 95.3 96.8 96.1 1983... 96.2 96.8 96.5 * 1984 (prelim)... . . . . . . OTHER NON-GOVERNMENT 1st to Final Yr 1973... 95.1 80.9 88.0 1974... 94.4 86.1 90.3 1975... 89.6 86.7 88.2 1976... 90.5 87.1 88.9 1977... 87.6 87.5 87.6 1978... 83.8 87.4 85.5 1979... 85.8 88.5 87.1 1980... 86.4 89.5 87.9 1981... 87.1 91.5 89.2 1982... 84.5 92.9 88.5 1983... 90.2 95.8 92.9 * 1984 (prelim)... . . . . . . 1st to 2nd Last Year 1973... 103.4 99.4 101.4 1974... 101.4 100.5 100.9 1975 100.3 99.4 99.9 1976... 99.8 100.7 100.3 1977... 95.3 100.4 97.8 1978... 99.3 102.7 100.9 1979... 100.3 103.5 101.8 1980... 100.7 107.9 104.2 1981... 97.8 108.1 102.7 1982... 100.6 108.5 104.4 1983... 100.1 110.6 105.1 * 1984 (prelim)... . . . . . . 1st to 3rd Last Yr 1973... 106.2 104.5105.3 1974... 105.2 105.2 105.2 1975... 105.4 104.0 104.7 1976... 102.5 102.6 102.6 1977... 105.0 105.1 105.1 1978... 105.0 106.1 105.5 1979... 107.5 108.6 108.0 1980... 105.1 109.1 107.0 1981... 106.7 109.1 107.8 1982... 106.4 112.3 109.2 1983... 106.5 110.5 108.5* 1984 (prelim)... . . . . . . ALL SCHOOLS 1st to Final Yr 1973... 35.2 30.8 33.1 1974... 34.1 31.6 32.9 1975... 34.6 33.6 34.1 1976... 34.6 35.3 34.9 1977... 34.0 36.6 35.3 1978... 33.1 37.3 35.1 1979... 32.4 37.2 34.7 1980... 31.9 37.3 34.5 1981... 32.0 37.8 34.8 1982... 32.9 39.9 36.3 1983... 37.5 43.9 40.6 * 1984 (prelim)... 42.1 48.0 45.0 1st to 2nd Last Year 1973... 49.9 46.9 48.4 1974... 48.2 47.1 47.7 1975 50.7 50.3 50.5 1976... 51.4 52.6 52.0 1977... 50.3 54.4 52.3 1978... 51.1 55.8 53.4 1979... 50.4 55.8 53.0 1980... 50.8 57.3 54.0 1981... 51.6 59.0 55.2 1982... 54.2 60.8 57.4 1983... 61.7 65.6 63.6 * 1984 (prelim)... 63.6 67.5 65.5 1st to 3rd Last Yr 1973... 82.5 81.6 82.1 1974... 82.0 82.2 82.1 1975... 84.8 85.1 84.9 1976... 86.5 86.7 86.6 1977... 87.1 88.3 87.7 1978... 88.3 89.5 88.8 1979... 88.5 90.4 89.4 1980... 89.5 91.5 90.5 1981... 90.3 92.6 91.4 1982... 92.0 93.8 92.9 1983... 93.9 94.6 94.3 * 1984 (prelim)... 93.4 94.3 93.8 *Preliminary figures from Department of Education. Note increases in retention rates to Year 11 and Year 12 in 1984. Mr FREE —I thank the House. The figures reveal four important trends. In the decade from 1974 to 1984, there has been a spectacular increase-from 32.9 per cent in 1974 to 45 per cent in 1984-in the number completing a full secondary education. This increase in retention has been most marked in recent years. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, retention rates hovered around 35 per cent, but there has been an 8.4 per cent growth rate over the last three years. There has been increased retention for girls. In 1974, they were 2.5 per cent behind males but in 1984 they were 5.9 per cent ahead. Growths occurred in all school sectors and now over one-third of those in government schools receive a full secondary education. The reasons for this trend have been examined in the summary report of the Australian Council for Educational Research entitled `Patterns of retention in Government Schools', which is a research study surveying 14,500 secondary students across Australia. The report found, among its many important findings, that those who continued beyond the compulsory years reported as important influences on their decisions the opportunity to study more useful subjects, their longer term career aims, the expectations of their parents and their own social expectations of life in senior years. The study examined three spheres of potential influence on the decisions to continue at school-the economic, the social and the school environment. Of the two aspects of the economic environment considered, the availability of jobs, while rated highly by those planning to leave, was by no means the sole determinant of a decision to continue at school. The provision of financial support through the secondary assistance schemes, while not a strong influence on the decision to continue, was nevertheless very important for students of lower socio-economic backgrounds and for those who originally had not planned to return. The study found that schools likely to be more successful in retaining students were those offering new curricula, more attractive and relevant courses and alternative courses as well as traditional programs, rather than those schools offering only the traditional courses geared to university entrance. There are important lessons for us all in this study. While the financial support factor did not emerge as an influence of general importance, it was significant for the children of lower socio-economic backgrounds. As the level of assistance is raised, there is every reason to expect this to become an increasingly important determinant of the choice to continue at school. This reform, together with the others of Priority One, will provide by the end of the decade an environment in which very few of our young people will face the hopelessness and waste of unemployment. I commend the Budget to the House. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(5.13) —Initially I will address my remarks to the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio. The administration of Aboriginal affairs in Australia today is in a state of malaise. There is discontent, division and uncertainty in Australian society as a result of the failure of the Government's policies. The Aboriginal people feel let down. Expectations have been raised and promises have been made but not delivered on. Both the policy and the administration of Aboriginal affairs are in a state of crisis. There is a lack of trust in the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), a Minister who, as a diversion to cover up his failures, is handing Ayers Rock to a small and newly-formed Aboriginal community. The Government is attempting to give credibility to this unpopular decision by involving the Governor-General and asking him to hand over the rock. I hope that, in the light of the unpopularity of the Government's decision and the harm it will do to race relations in Australia, the Government will withdraw the Governor-General's invitation. I believe that the decision of this Government, resulting in the legislation which was passed through the Parliament, to hand over Ayers Rock-Uluru to this small Aboriginal community should be reversed. The legislation should be repealed. I believe that the Opposition should give notice of this belief now, so that there will be no doubt about its intention to repeal that legislation when we come into office. This Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has abandoned any bipartisanship in Aboriginal policy. His precarious policies foster division and tension in society. His dogged insistence on national uniform land rights is doing enormous harm to relations between Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals. The Minister is in open warfare with the Western Australian Premier. He is criticised in his own Party, from the Right by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) and from the Left by the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner). He has no friends. The Minister must stop and think. He must look where he is going, at the path he is on. The Minister's National Press Club speech last week was a litany of policy failures and an attempt to blame racism for his lack of action. It is a speech that he should have made at the beginning of his administration, not three years on. He tries to blame community attitudes and racism for his lack of action. There is a crying need for proper health care and suitable education facilities, not to mention housing and employment opportunities, for Aboriginal people in Australia; yet, the hallmark of this Minister's administration has been a focus of his energies and his concentration on uniform land rights-an obsession. I believe that there is a need to abandon uniform land rights. There is a need for a complete review of every aspect of Aboriginal affairs expenditure in Australia today. There is a need for a complete review of the effectiveness of the delivery of services to Aboriginal people. Obviously, at one stage the Minister recognised that there was a need for review. In 1983, he believed that the National Aboriginal Conference, the Aboriginal Development Commission and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs should all be reviewed, but he has abandoned that hope. The only review that has taken place was of the National Aboriginal Conference, and we have seen what a shambles the Government's administration has been in relation to that. The Minister's Press Club speech was a litany of policy failures. As to land rights generally, I believe that the land rights movement may have given some Aboriginals a sense of identity but on balance it has divided the nation. Many Aboriginal people do not identify with the movement. The land rights movement certainly is not supported by the vast majority of Australians, as shown by a recent survey conducted by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, which the Minister tried to hide until the Press, having got a leaked copy, published it. Land rights, especially uniform land rights, have created divisiveness in Australian society and set back the cause of real advancement in areas of need for Aboriginal Australians. On balance the land rights movement has done more harm than good for Aboriginal people. That position has been exacerbated by this Government and by this Minister, with his obsession with uniform national land rights which has created divisions, tensions and a backlash in Australian society and made it harder for those trying to achieve advances for Aboriginal people. One of the most important things that hit me as shadow Minister was the large number of moderate Aboriginal people who have the same hopes and aspirations about their futures in Australian society as non-Aboriginals. There is a great commonality of interest between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians, and that must be appreciated. The tragedy of this Government's administration is that that moderation is being hidden and divisiveness is being created. I now turn to the small business sector and its importance to the economy. Small business is the backbone of the economy and the life-blood of the nation. I consider that it is in the area of the small and medium-sized firm, farm and family enterprise that the future of Australia lies. That is where the growth will be and that is where the jobs will come from. If we ask ourselves what is needed to get small business going we get the answer to what is needed to get Australia going. This Government asks itself the wrong question all the time; it asks what is good for the trade union movement. I say that what is good for small business will be good for Australia. Government policies for small business must create opportunities to allow small business to grow and to prosper to encourage investment to take place. The task of a government is merely to create the climate, to set the scene and create the environment for small business to prosper and for investment and entrepreneurship to take place. More than ever small business needs today deregulation of the wages system. What is needed to get small business going? Deregulation of wages is the first answer. This is especially so for the young who are being priced out of the work force. As I travelled around Australia during my time as shadow Minister for small business I found genuine employers who said to me that they would employ young people if they did not have to pay the full wage. When I travel around Australia now I find young people still saying to me that they would work for less than the full wage. What a crazy system we have created when the young want to work and employers want to employ them but because of an institutionalised arbitration system, high fixed wages and a system with, by and large, no junior wage, employers cannot employ people and the young cannot get jobs. Deregulation of wages will not occur under this Government because this Government is beholden to the trade union movement. In the short term it is imperative that the Government apply to the existing tribunals to have youth wages components placed in existing awards. Not only do wages need deregulating at present but the growth of wages regulation needs to be stopped. The increased regulation of contractors and sub-contractors is a case in point. The growth in the number of contractors and sub-contractors is the reaction of the market place to the institutionalised and highly regulated wages system which embodies high costs, especially high on-costs and wages. At present contractors and sub-contractors are being squeezed. They are caught in a pincer movement between government on the one hand and unions on the other. Governments and unions are joined in a conspiracy to force independent contractors to become employees. It is in the interests of unions that such contractors become employees because they are forced then to join the unions. This pincer movement, this squeeze, must be stopped. I refer now to profits in small business. Obviously small business needs to be able to make profits. Jobs result from greater profits and profits create the funds for investment and the development of businesses. It goes without saying, it is so obvious and fundamental, but I think it needs repeating from time to time, that without profits businesses and jobs do not last for very long. That is the bottom line. Let us look at what small business needs to grow and prosper and what is needed to create a dynamic small business sector in Australia today. Does small business need a capital gains tax? The answer is no, because to tax the goodwill of every business is to tax the hard work and savings of business owners. Often the goodwill of the business represents the owner's superannuation, something which public servants and politicians get regardless. Also at this time in Australia's history small business does not need to bear the costs of a finge benefit tax levied on employers which the government intends to introduce. Such a fringe benefit tax levied on employers discriminates against the private sector. There will be a rush to the newly created creature of the arbitrated allowance, which will be exempt. That is another sop to the trade union movement. Small business needs freedom to operate. It needs to be liberated from big government and big unions. Above all it needs to be liberated from the abuse of union power. Apart from the retention of section 45D and section 45E of the Trade Practices Act other legislation is needed to curb abuses of union power. Governments must support small business in times of difficulty. I instance the siege of Mudginberri and of the firm Dollar Sweets Co. Pty Ltd in Malvern in my electorate in Melbourne. At present that company is being bullied and intimidated by unions but has had no support from either the Hawke Government or the Cain Government. The effects of high inflation on small business will be catastrophic. High inflation increases costs and inhibits the growth of jobs. In the September quarter Australia faces the prospect of inflation hitting double-digit annualised rates. The more severe effects of the currency develuation are now being felt. The main effects of the April national wage decision are now being reflected in what consumers are being asked to pay. I think quarterly inflation of between 3 and 4 per cent is in prospect. To discount in the April 1986 national wage case will be a matter of too little too late. The proposed discounting by the Government of two percentage points is a bad miscalculation. By next April we will be well and truly in the grip of inflation with all its disastrous consequences, including, I predict, new rounds of currency depreciation. Now is the time to act. Now is the time to take remedial action. The Government should abandon indexation in the current national wage case. This Government must be decisive. The benefits of a decision of the kind that I recommend would be felt in the first half of 1986. Such decisions would be reflected in a firmer Australian dollar and a lower rate of inflation-changes from which all Australians would benefit. The other aspect of the Government's wages deal with the Australian Council of Trade Unions which I wish to raise concerns the hidden cost sleeper-which I think has not been appreciated in the community-of occupational superannuation. I do not want to debate the merits or demerits of occupational superannuation. However, approximately $8 a week will have to be paid by every business, large or small, in Australia. Of course, small businesses will bear the burden of that added cost. Small business has not been consulted and has not been asked. Irrespective of the firm or business's capacity to pay it will have to pay an implied wage increase of $8 a week for superannuation. That is a cost burden which I predict-indeed I know-small business cannot afford at this time. Finally I refer to the combined effect of taxation and inflation on the savings of individuals. That is something which the National Taxation Summit and this Government completely ignored. Individuals-savers, if one likes-who invest in building socieities, bank deposits, shares, debentures and savings bonds are being penalised by the existing taxation system and the effect of inflation. To get a reasonable real return in Australia today after inflation is virtually impossible. For instance, if one takes $100 which has been invested and which returns $8 after one year, one will find that after tax and after taking account of an inflation rate of 8 per cent the real net post-tax return will be zero. I have had some figures prepared which I would like to bring to the attention of the House. If we have an interest rate of 12 per cent, an inflation rate of 12 per cent and a marginal tax rate of 47 per cent-one of the tax rates-there will be a minus 6 per cent negative return to the investor. The investor will be down the drain to the tune of 6 per cent. Part of the pressure for higher interest rates comes from investors wanting a real after tax return on investment. This has not been realised and there has been too little debate about it. I believe the tax laws must be changed to allow claims for depreciation of the value of purchasing power or by taxing only the net real interest received. This needs to be done as a matter of fairness to the investor, especially retired people living on fixed interest, and to eliminate a distortion of the financial system that affects an efficient economy. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler)(5.31) —The Budget before the House at present builds upon the Hawke Government's previous successes and continues in the pursuit of the Government's twin goals of economic growth and a fairer society. Two of the major elements of those goals are our youth strategy and our strategy for improving the lot of people who are on social security benefits. Our youth strategy comprises four elements-training and employment, income support for young people, support services for young people and an education program. In the training and employment area, the Government has instituted a trainee system which will be implemented in 1985-86. It will expend $15.7m on that program, which will provide trainee schemes for about 10,000 young people, mainly 16- and 17-year-olds, who will be participating in a new form of structured training. From 1 January next year a new wage subsidy program will be introduced. This program will integrate the present special youth employment training program, the adult wage subsidy scheme and the disabled and special needs job seekers wage subsidy programs. The expenditure for this scheme in 1985-86 will be approximately $142m. The Government will also be providing $2.9m to the Commonwealth Employment Service to allow it to expand its services to young people. In the income support area, in 1986 nearly all young people who are currently eligible for the 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. The Government will also be providing support services for young people. From 1 January next year a new community-based training program, incorporating the community youth support scheme, the volunteer youth programs and the work preparation program is to be introduced. The Government will provide a 23 per cent increase in its allocation to CYSS from $26.1m in 1984-85 to $32m in the next financial year. In 1985-86 we will also be providing two new programs to help young people-the youth service development scheme, which will develop and test youth service initiatives in response to locally identified needs, and a group volunteer community service scheme which will provide grants towards the cost of approved volunteer community service projects. On the education front, the Government has agreed to fund a further increase in the intakes to tertiary and senior schools and there will be further increases in 1987. The Government has legislated for increases in school grants from 1985 to 1988, subject to satisfactory resource agreements being made between the states and non-government schools. The Government's Priority One: Young Australia scheme, which was introduced by the Hawke Government in this Budget, will go a long way to ensuring that young people get the deal that they deserve to get in Australia. In the social security area, the Government's initiatives in this year's Budget will help the poorest and most disadvantaged people in the community and continue the process of redistribution and reform begun by the Government in 1983. The major achievements in the 1985-86 Budget are a significant increase in the assistance for low income families, single parents and children in poverty. The Budget addresses the needs of the unemployed by increasing benefits, attacking the problem of poverty traps and extending for the first time rent assistance to many unemployed. The Government is also providing three new payments to help people with special needs. It is introducing respite care for the aged, a carer's pension for those people caring for an aged relation, and a multiple births payment for those families coping with the difficulty of large families. The Government is also looking at programs in the community development area. The Government will be providing many new services in this Budget under the Government's community services program. Following on the recommendations of the handicapped programs review report released in May 1985, $5m will be provided in addition to some $121m allocated to existing commitments in the disability service area. In keeping with the Government's election commitments to introduce 20,000 new child care places over the next three years, the Government has allocated $107m for implementation of the strategy. The major part of the funds will be expended in the latter two years of the three-year program. The improvements already set in place in relation to community care services will be consolidated with the maintenance, in real terms, of the base level funding of the home and community care program. The Government has decided that hostel, personal and respite care subsidies will be converted to a daily basis in this financial year. The hostel care subsidy will be increased from $1.60 to $1.80 a day from 1 January next year. A forward commitment process has been established for the supported accommodation assistance program with an additional $5m being provided in the next financial year for additional salary subsidies and new services. The Government intends to continue funding the family support services scheme for another 12 months until 30 September 1986. The Government has introduced a number of initiatives which will go a long way to alleviating the difficulties of those people in our community who are on the lowest level of payments from governments. When one looks at the Government's initiatives one should look at what the Opposition offers. The present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) made his Budget reply speech to the National Press Club on Wednesday, 28 August 1985. He said: The main cause of the blow-out in government expenditure in recent years has taken place in the welfare area-particularly in the areas of unemployment payments and supporting parents benefits. Together they have accounted for probably 60 per cent of the increase in the welfare bill over the past 10 to 15 years. Of course, he did not mention that for many of those 10 to 15 years his Party was in Government. The Leader of the Opposition, in his speech to the National Press Club, seemed to be saying that the Government needed to exercise restraint in that area. The Government makes no appology for the fact that in this Budget it has increased assistance to those people, particularly those on unemployment benefits and the supporting parent's benefit, because those people are on the bottom of the heap in Australia. The Opposition has no interest in them at all. The Opposition's response to many of these issues is that we should privatise welfare. What that means I do not know. I think the general concensus would be that what the Opposition wants us to do, by privatising welfare, is to return to the old charities of the 1920s and 1930s. The Sydney Morning Herald of 24 May 1985 quotes the Leader of the Opposition as saying: I think there are no limits at all to what can be privatised. The article states: The Deputy Opposition Leader, Mr Howard, has raised the possibility of privatising social welfare programs, carrying his proposals for moving government activities in the private sector to a new plane. I think it is disgraceful to consider privatising welfare. I am sure that the present Government has no intention of going along with that. I am sure that the present Opposition will be doomed to the Opposition benches because it proposes these sorts of programs. In the few moments left to me, I think we should examine another matter that has to deal with the new Leader of the Opposition-a myth that is being generated by some of his publicists in the Press, who seem to suggest that the new Leader of the Opposition is just a working class boy from Earlwood who has made it good and has managed to get across the tracks to Wollstonecraft. I think if one looks at the background of the Leader of the Opposition one will probably realise why he adopts the concept of privatising welfare. We have been told that the Leader of the Opposition grew up in Earlwood. All of us who know Earlwood are aware that it is an area which is now pretty well dominated by the Australian Labor Party. A considerable number of working class people live within the boundaries of that suburb. However, Earlwood was an entirely different place in the 1950s when the Leader of the Opposition was growing up there. Earlwood was an island of privilege surrounded by a sea of working class people. A good example and an indicator of that are the returns for New South Wales Legislative Assembly elections between 1950 and 1956. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table prepared by the Department of the Parliamentary Library Statistics Group. Leave granted. The table read as follows- TWO PARTY PREFERRED VOTE, SELECTED ELECTORAL DISTRICTS, N.S.W. LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS 1950 TO 1956 (Percent) District 1950 A.L.P. LIB. 1953 A.L.P. LIB. 1956 A.L.P. LIB. Earlwood... 44.5 55.5 49.7 50.3 42.0 58.0 Bankstown... 62.8 37.2 67.0 33.0 63.1 36.9 Canterbury... 58.8 41.2 70.0 30.0 59.3 40.7 Cook's River... 75.0 25.0 70.0 30.0 70.7 29.3 Dulwick Hill... 54.3 45.7 62.4 37.6 52.7 47.3 Hurstville... 53.8 46.2 58.6 41.4 53.3 46.7 Lakemba... 56.9 43.1 68.8 31.2 65.5 34.5 Marrickville... 68.4 31.6 68.0 32.0 65.9 34.1 Rockdale... 54.0 46.0 60.5 39.5 51.3 48.7 Source: Australian Two Party Preferred Votes, 1949-1982, Australian Political Studies Association, Canberra 1983. Compiled at request by the Statistics Group of the Legislative Research Service. Mr LEO McLEAY —A perusal of that table will show that in the elections of 1950, 1953 and 1956 all of the electorates surrounding Earlwood returned Labor members with thumping majorities. However, Earlwood stuck out like a sore thumb of middle class privilege, returning a Liberal party member in the years in which the Leader of the Opposition grew up there. Earlwood in those days was never a working class area. Indeed, as a young man growing up at about the same time and living on the wrong side of Cooks River, I know that to look across the river at the geographical heights of Earlwood was also to look at the heights of middle class privileges and the small middle class minds that influenced the Leader of the Opposition to make the statement: `I think there are no limits at all to what can be privatised'. That is the sort of attitude that the Leader of the Opposition grew up with; that is the sort of attitude that caused him to flee across the Parramatta River to Wollstonecraft where he now lives. This is the area where, of course, all the snobby middle class people who grew up with him in Earlwood in those days would prefer to live. It has been suggested to us that the Leader of the Opposition is somehow representative of Earlwood. The Parliamentary Library Statistics Group has prepared a table based on the 1981 census which compares characteristics of the Earlwood postcode district and the Wollstonecraft postcode district. This table shows that the Wollstonecraft district, where the Leader of the Opposition now lives, and the Earlwood district, where he grew up, are entirely different suburbs. They are entirely different areas which are populated by entirely different people. I seek leave to incorporate that table in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- COMPARISON OF SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS 1981 CENSUS (Percent) Earlwood Postcode District Wollstone- craft Postcode District Population Born Overseas... 34.0 28.8 Unemployment Rate... 4.1 3.6 Wage and Salary Earners... 87.3 90.0 Family Income $8000... 33.0 23.9 Single Parent Families... 3.1 4.4 Persons Not Fluent in English... 13.9 3.2 Persons with Tertiary Education Qualifications... 5.8 18.0 Persons Employed in Professional Occupations... 10.7 25.8 Source: Census of Population and Housing, 1981. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Compiled at request by the Statistics Group of the Legislative Research Service. Mr LEO McLEAY —To live in the inner western suburbs has many joys; it also has some difficulties. One of the difficulties is to be identified politically as somehow or other being like the Leader of the Opposition. I noted in one newspaper that the Leader of the Opposition was even said to be a westy. He never was a westy, he will never be a westy and, what is more, we do not want him. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(5.44) —I cannot let the opportunity pass without referring to the previous speaker, the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay). I must say that I am rather disturbed about him. I feel very sad and very sorry for him if he has to refer, as he did this afternoon, to `snobby middle class people living in Wollstonecroft'. Those are his words, not mine. I believe that the people of this country have to get together. We should not throw buckets on people by calling them snobby middle class people. As a member of this Parliament I am concerned about all Australians. I do not believe that the honourable member for Grayndler or anybody else does this country any good whatsoever by trying to create so-called class divisions. In the bad old days the Australian Labor Party had its 36 faceless men. The leaders of the Labor Party used to have to wait outside while decisions were handed down. However, the way that it is turning out with this Hawke puppet Government, it is not that much different. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! I call the honourable member for Cowper to order. I remind him that when he is referring to the Prime Minister, Ministers and members of this House he should do so with due respect. Mr NEHL —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I certainly will give the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) all the respect which is due to him. However, we now have the same situation. Instead of waiting outside some dingy meeting hall, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and other people associated with his Government run down to some pub somewhere or other where they get their instructions and where they play the game of `Simon says'. That is why we have ended up with this so-called Budget. It is a Clayton's Budget; it is the Budget you have when you are not having a Budget. Of course, the Budget is in three parts. We had the May part when the Treasurer gave us the mini-Budget. We had the so-called goodies Budget in August-and that certainly is an inappropriate description. This month, perhaps tomorrow or perhaps on Thursday, we are going to have what is commonly alleged to be the baddies Budget. The Treasurer made reference in his Budget Speech to the historic trilogy of the Labor Party. The three-part Budget of the present Government is in fact three one-act plays that add up to a tragic trilogy for the Australian people. Of those three parts, the worst apparently is to come this week. The capital gains tax, which has loudly been trumpeted through the media, is likely to be the most vicious attack on small business, farmers, small investors and shareholders that this country has ever seen. The farmers and small business men and women of this country work long hours. It is not an exaggeration to say that a great many of them work their guts out, often for a very low income and a very low return. In many cases the proceeds from the sale of their business is the only real return that they get for those long years of labour. The current provisions of capital gains taxation are directed at short term speculative gains-at people who are dealing in property or shares. Section 25A of the Income Tax Assessment Act is directed at taxing gains arising from the sale of any investment which was deemed to have been acquired for the purpose of profit making by sale. So far, nobody quibbles with that. Section 26AAA is directed at taxing gains from the sale of an investment within 12 months. That provision has been in the legislation for a long time. The Government's examination of the capital gains tax should really focus on short term speculative gains. A widespread capital gains tax is, frankly, not on. I turn to the effect of this tax on agriculture. A widespread capital gains tax will provide a serious discouragement to risk taking and long term low return investments such as farming and small business enterprises because investment in farming is not characterised by short term speculative investment. There is a considerable risk in farming, given changes in demand for commodities over a period of, say, 15 to 20 years. Of course, a capital gains tax will have a most detrimental impact on farm and small business viability. Mr Cobb —It will cripple them. Mr NEHL —It will indeed cripple them; it will crush them. In fact, the imposition of a capital gains tax will have a highly adverse effect on those with a high level of indebtedness, and that includes a great many farmers and a great many people involved in small businesses. The debt to equity ratio will increase. Also, there is a great probability that bank foreclosures will increase. I would like to say something about the constant reference in this place by the Treasurer and the Prime Minister to the recovery. I ask the men and women of Australia: Where is the recovery? There is no evidence of it in the front line. By that, I mean in the country towns and cities of Australia. There is no evidence whatsoever. Businesses are closing down almost weekly. Farmers, who are in great trouble, have the Government to thank for a great part of their problems. This Government will rue the day that it introduces, as forecast, a new capital gains tax. The people of Australia will be seriously hurt if such a tax is introduced. They will not forgive this Government for taking such a step. Mr Cowan —Working men will pay higher rents. Mr NEHL —Yes, working men and women will be affected as well. What about fringe benefits? Labor will hit millions of Australians if it starts to tax fringe benefits. It is all very well to give the impression that it is something that will affect the so-called tall poppies; but it will not affect only the tall poppies. The provision and acceptance of fringe benefits extends in one way or another to the factory floor. Many references have been made to motor vehicles, petrol allowances and car allowances. I heard from a very authoritative source only this morning that, in a crackdown on fringe benefits in regard to motor vehicles, 900,000 cars will be affected. Therefore, 900,000 people and their families will be affected. What about the subsidised canteen or dining room in a factory? I have worked for a company in Alexandria in Sydney in which there was a subsidised dining room. Every one of those workers- Mr Uren —That is a furphy. Mr NEHL —The Minister may call it a furphy, but I do not believe that that is so. If the Government is fair dinkum and does what it says it will do and taxes fringe benefits it will affect the free lunches for workers as well as the entertainment expenses that it has talked about. What about employers' contributions towards health insurance, benevolent funds, superannuation, education of children and life insurance? These are the fringe benefits that will be taxed. What about the subsidised access by employees to factory products, or shop or staff discounts? Perhaps the David Jones or Grace Bros stores provide their staff with a 10 per cent staff discount. That is a fringe benefit, and it will have to be taxed if the Government taxes fringe benefits. In regard to entertainment costs, it is a reasonable, logical, rational business expenses to be able to entertain someone. I can seen no reason why reasonable entertainment costs should not be allowed. The same argument applies in regard to travelling allowances. If an employee is forced to travel to Melbourne for business reasons, the allowance that he receives is not a fringe benefit or a perk; it is a cost. I refer also to family entitlements to concessions on goods and services when one family member is an employee of a company. I do not know how many thousands of people who work for Qantas Airways Ltd, Trans Australia Airlines, Ansett Airlines of Australia and travel agencies receive concessions on fares not only for themselves but for their families as well. This is just one other area in which a tax on fringe benefits would apply. Perhaps the Government has not thought about it, but millions of Australians will be affected by the fringe benefits tax if the Government is fair dinkum and imposes it across the board. What about clothing allowances? I refer to businesses which provide their employees with boots or overalls, and the uniforms provided for bank employees or Pizza Hut employees? What about the uninforms provided to police officers? Is that a fringe benefit? What about the parliamentary attendants? Their uniforms are provided. Will the Government tax them as well? What about the armed Services? The list is almost endless. What about individual employees who are provided with training or education at the company's expense? That training will improve the employee's earning capacity. That is a benefit, a fringe, a perk, according to the attitudes which the Labor Party has adopted. What about people who live in remote areas of Australia, such as Karratha or Weipa, and who are provided with travel allowances for themselves and the families as part of their employment conditions so that they are able to escape the searing heat and humidity from which they suffer all year? That provision will be taxed as well. That applies to people working for mining companies or on oil rigs in remote areas. The tall poppies-the managing directors or general managers-are not the only ones who might receive subsidised housing. Frankly, I do not know anyone who does receive it. But I know that many bank officers get subsidised housing. I know that many people in the defence forces-miners, people working in sawmills and teachers-get subsidised housing. This provision will be taxed as a fringe benefit as well. What about low interest loans provided by banks for their employees? Will the free housing given to farm employees be taxed as well? What about the free milk, eggs and meat that he receives for his kids? Will they be taxed as well? What about restaurant and catering staff who are provided with meals on the job? That is a fringe benefit as well. Will the Government tax that? I do not believe that this Government realises that it will hurt millions and millions of Australians. I said in regard to the introduction of a capital gains tax that the Government would rue the day, and it will rue the day in regard to fringe benefits as well. Roll on the next election. The Government has brought down the deficit by $1.8 billion. Of course, it is highly commendable that the deficit should have been reduced. But we should not forget that the deficit is still $4.9 billion. The total deficit in only three years of Labor budgeting is $19.6 billion. That figure should be compared with the total deficit for the last three Budgets of the Fraser-Anthony Government, which amounted to only $6.1 billion. The deficit in three Budgets that have been handed down by this Government has more than trebled the figure for the deficit in the last three Budgets of the Fraser-Anthony Government. It is a government of high taxers and big spenders. It would like to have us believe that expenditure has been reduced, but that is not so. Even though the deficit has been reduced by $1.8 billion, expenditure is still up by $5.3 billion. Revenue is up by $7.1 billion. It is a high taxing, big spending government. I would like to consider this point: What is a billion dollars? We in this place talk about billions as though they are going out of fashion. What does it really mean? Madam Deputy Speaker, if you sat at a shredder for eight hours a day, five days a week and had somebody bring you $2 notes, it would take a little over 10 years to shred a billion dollars. The Government spends one and third billion dollars a week. That is an incredible amount of money. The Government pays interest on its debt of 9.7 per cent-nearly 10 per cent-or $6.7 billion. The debt is $55.9 billion. In 1983 when the Labor Government came to office the deficit was only $39 billion. In two years it has gone up by $16 billion. It is getting well beyond our capacity to pay. I turn briefly to the youth scene, because the youth of this country are vital to the future. An article in the Australian Financial Review of 15 July 1985, in referring to the Prime Minister, stated: The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, has given the bold undertaking that the Federal Government will wipe out the `spectre of unemployment' for the youngest job seekers. . . . claiming that it would wipe out unemployment for 16 and 17-year-olds and virtually eliminate unemployment for 18 and 19-year-olds. That is a lot of nonsense. It is a commendable thought, but how will it be implemented? Nothing has been put forward which will achieve it. There has been a lot of flourish and fanfare, but what is the real situation? I would like to refer to two areas in regard to employment and industrial relations-training and job creation and employment assistance. Funds for training expenditure in the current Budget have increased by $34m. But funds for job creation and employment assistance are down by $120m-a net loss of $86m, covering all ages. The real emphasis, supposedly, by the Prime Minister and his Government is on youth. If we include apprenticeship training and the new traineeship program, funds for training expenditures have increased by $25.6m. Honourable members should note that none of the Premiers of the States are falling over themselves to prop up the suggestion that they will abolish the payroll tax in regard to these traineeships or provide free workers' compensation. There has been deathly silence from the Premiers in that regard. The allocation for job creation, including the community employment program, is down by $174.9m. That is a net loss of $122m in the funds being provided for job creation. It is not a very positive approach. Really, it is an anti-youth employment scheme. In conclusion, I refer to this Budget's forecasting framework, as set out at page 70 in Budget Paper No. 1. I quote: The forecasts in this Statement are, of course, conditional on a set of assumptions. Those assumptions cover largely exogenous factors, such as developments in the world economy, rural conditions and policy settings. . . . The forecasts should therefore be seen as no more than approximate outcomes centred on a range of plausible possibilities, conditional on a number of assumption. With phrases such as `approximate outcomes', `plausible possibilities', and `conditional on assumptions', this really is a Yes Minister Budget. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(6.00) —It was very interesting to listen to the speech of the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl). He had a shopping bag of rumours and suggestions about what will and what will not be in the tax package. I do not want to take up all of my speech in answering every single one of them. Let me take just one for example. Let me assure the honourable member for Cowper, who wants all Australians to work together, that his scare tactics in relation to staff canteens are well wide of the mark, as were many of his other comments. I had hoped that the honourable member for Cowper would give me and the people of Australia his thoughts and response to the words that we learnt that his former leader, Doug Anthony, has distributed and circulated- Mr McVeigh —A great leader! Mr PRICE —He was a very great leader. I thought that we would be getting some pearls of wisdom, but no. I thought that as the honourable member for Cowper represents the seat that he does, we would have had at least some comment on his feelings about whether Telecom Australia charges should go up and whether country people should be denied services as a result of the coalition's attitude to privatisation. I did not hear one word about that, nor did his constituents or all the people of Australia who were listening. It was very disappointing. Let me remind honourable members that if there was one government that was very good at doing something in this country, it was the Fraser Government which was good at creating unemployment. That was the one growth industgry honourable members opposite had for seven years. Whilst that might be very easy to engineer, it is very hard to correct. This Government has done all within its power in a reasonable timeframe to right that wrong. Of course, the record of this Government is that instead of regressing and adding to unemployment we have now put 430,000 people back into employment and a decent way of living. We have taken them off the dole queues. I am sure that when the people of Australia come to judge the proven performance of this Government as against the proven performance of the Opposition and, in particular, the former Treasurer under Fraser, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), I know which way the people will go. In the short time that is allocated to me I want to raise an issue which has been of some considerable concern to me and a number of my colleagues in western Sydney. I refer to the unprincipled attacks by the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) and the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan), who of course represents the Gold Coast-the blue rinse set, the millionaires club-on the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) and what he has done for sport in Australia. Let me refresh the memories of honourable members opposite because they need refreshing. In their period in office they ignored sport. All they provided in the three years of Fraser was $3m- Mr Spender —John Brown certainly hasn't. Mr PRICE —I will get to that. Listen to this. In the three years of Fraser $3m was spent. In 1982, $14m was spent; in 1984 we spent $54m and we are continuing that process. The honourable member for Richmond mentioned Cumberland stadium. I am glad he mentioned that. Mr Lee —They would not know where it is. Mr PRICE —They would not know where it is or what the impact is. Tonight I want to know whether this attitude by these two honourable members-one a shadow Minister-reflects the policy and attitudes of the Liberal Party of Australia. They are saying that the program by which Cumberland was funded-the State Government of New South Wales made it a priority to fund-is somehow pork barrelling for John Brown. Let me say that this facility is not just for the people of Parramatta. It is a facility all the people of the Western Suburbs will enjoy. I include people in my electorate. It is curious that just when Cumberland Oval is nearing completion, three years after the heartburn and the decisions about Cumberland, this new look Liberal Party is suddenly discovering it. What are some of the electorates that will benefit? I believe that the electorates of my colleagues, the honourable member for Fowler (Mr Grace), the honourable member for Werriwa (Mr Kerin), obviously the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown), the honourable member for Greenway (Mr Gorman), the honourable member for Lindsay (Mr Free), the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin)-all people who enjoy sports-will also benefit. Cumberland Oval will be an international facility not just for the rugby league club, the Parramatta Eels who have been doing so well, but also for soccer. It will be a major entertainment venue. It is a pity that not many honourable members opposite are in the House, apart from the duty shadow Minister, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). This is what honourable members opposite are opposing. Why do they want to take it out on the Western Suburbs of Sydney? Why do they resent anything that will be of benefit to the Western Suburbs? I find it completely ironic that the Liberal Party, administratively, has made a decision to put a duty member of the Legislative Council, Mr Hannaford-God love his soul; what a thankless task he has-at Parramatta to try to rev up the western suburbs of Sydney. In this place we have two Federal members, one of them a shadow Minister, who have been attacking the west and facilities for the west. Why do they hate the Western Suburbs so? Surely, when they put out leaflets asking people to join the Liberal Party in the Western Suburbs, if they are not to be reported to the Trade Practices Commission, why do they not mention their miserable, miserly attitude to Cumberland Oval? I understand that the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Alan Cadman), will follow me at some time in these proceedings. I congratulate Alan on his promotion to the shadow Ministry. Is he going to join in this concerted attack on the people of the western suburbs of Sydney? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —The honourable member must address the honourable member for Mitchell by his electorate name. Mr PRICE —I am sorry; I know him so well. I apologise. Is the honourable member for Mitchell, who will be following me in this debate, going to deny, on behalf of his constituents, the right to enjoy these facilities? Is that his real attitude to Cumberland Oval? Is he going to endorse what appears to be this policy of denigration of the Western Suburbs? I suppose that I might very well ask that question of the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), even though he has been recently demoted. Surely he would know that much about the western suburbs of Sydney that he would concede that considerable numbers of his constituents will enjoy this facility. Surely he can speak about whether he agrees with this denigration of Western Suburbs people. The same applies also to the new honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster). I believe that the people of the western suburbs of Sydney are entitled to know the attitudes of these honourable members. Will they join this blue rinse, millionaire attack on the western suburbs of Sydney or will they speak, as they sometimes do, and say what a damn good facility this is not only for the electorate of Parramatta but also for the whole of the western suburbs of Sydney? I do not have much more time available but I would be remiss if I did not say what a marvellous thing the Hawke Labor Government has done for the western suburbs of Sydney in terms of Priority One: Young Australia, particularly as it relates to education, job traineeships, income support and community support. It is a tragedy that under the previous Government, which was only good at creating 700 unemployed people every day in its last year of office, the Western Suburbs clearly missed out and did not get a fair share. This youth policy will provide the impetus for a community effort involving government bodies, private business, parents, teachers and students working together to provide new and exciting opportunities for our young people. Whilst 100,000 young people go on to either apprenticeships or higher forms of tertiary education, another 100,000 young people receive no government assistance in terms of enhancing their employment prospects once they leave school. Many of those people are from the west. Principally they will benefit. It was a great move by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) to commission the Kirby Committee of Inquiry into the Labour Market Programs. No one can quibble or cavil at the speed at which the Government as a whole has considered the recommendations and introduced these traineeships. The one great virtue of the traineeships is that they are for a 12-month period and mix a combination of on the job and formal training and, in total, have a component of 13 weeks full time training. Not only is the Government to provide 10,000 of these traineeships in this financial year, but it will build up to provide 75,000 traineeships in 1988. Although I could talk about other aspects of Priority One programs, I wish to commend the Government on the early literacy in-service course program which has been established to improve the learning skills of primary school children. Having talked to many of the headmasters in my electorate, I know that this will considerably benefit primary school children and teachers in the western suburbs of Sydney. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(6.11) —I wish to commence my address to the House in regard to the 1985-86 Budget by quoting from the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to the Sun News-Pictorial during the last election campaign. He said: I now set myself a goal for the second term of the Hawke Government and that is we will destroy for all time the myth that the ALP is the party of high taxation. I would also like to quote the Treasurer (Mr Keating), who said on 9 June this year in regard to his preferred option for taxation: If this sort of proposal doesn't get up, one has to decide if there's much point in someone like me worrying about the Australian institutional process and Australian institutions, very much longer. Following the statement by the Prime Minister that he had a mandate to make sure that the Australian Labor Party was recognised as a party of low taxation, we have seen a Budget in which the pay as you earn taxpayers will contribute an additional 11.6 per cent to revenue, or a total of $3,390m, in one year. There is talk from the Treasurer and Prime Minister about tax reform. I wish to point out to Australians that that tax reform at the very earliest will be available to them on 1 September 1986. For one year the Government will continue to collect taxes at an extremely high level-the highest ever. Pay as you earn taxpayers will be contributing during that 12 months 51 per cent of total receipts of government. More than half of the funds raised by this Government will come from people who get their tax deductions on a weekly or fortnightly basis. This is an extremely high taxation Government. This Government has not sought to reform the tax system. It has sought to get a breathing space of 12 months in which to raise extraordinarily high taxes from the average citizen and postpone any concessions for 12 months. So there is a delay in the process while the Government has the opportunity to get itself ready for a small give-away program. Honourable members will remember the bidding process, one against the other, between the Prime Minister and the Treasurer in the levels of tax concessions they felt would be appropriate. That took place in February this year before the tax summit. One day it was 20 per cent from the Treasurer; next day there were to be 25 per cent concessions to the taxpayers by the Treasurer. Followed by the Prime Minister, it eventually went up to 30 per cent. Those were the concessions spoken of at that stage for average Australians. Instead, the Government has introduced a Budget that seeks to grab more from the average worker than ever before. What is there in this Budget? There are some thoughtful concessions; there is a more intelligent approach to unemployment and the needs of the young. Certainly I acknowledge that, but basically it is a Budget that has reacted to opinion polls. It has sought to make the Government more popular with the people, but the facts are that for an average wage earner or a person in small business terrible days are ahead. I draw attention to the Treasurer's Press statement of 19 July in which he knocked off concessional expenditure rebates for families. Few people recognise that before they pay tax at the end of this financial year there will not be that deduction of $2,000 off the top for things like educational expenditure, rates and other family concessions that have been offered traditionally to families in Australia. They have gone. The Treasurer has knocked them off because, as he said: These changes were canvassed as part of each approach set out in the draft White Paper on Tax Reforms. The changes will significantly simplify the personal income tax. They will also make the income tax fairer as only a small proportion of taxpayers, mainly those with higher incomes, have been eligible for any benefit under the former rebate. That is nonsense. Every family sought a concession for educational expenses. Every family in Australia has to pay rates. I acknowledge that the Treasurer said that there will be a concession for medical expenses only, but if one looks at what the revenue will gain by that process out of the pockets of families at the end of next year one sees that there will be an additional $60m grabbed by the Government by that simple stroke of the pen. Indeed, this year small business will pay in provisional taxation an additional $15m. So the grab for small business will come this year, and for taxpayers it will come next year. Gone are the encouragements and concessions to basic Australian families. Acts of that sort are criminal and extremely damaging for the future of Australian families. I move through some of the other areas in this Budget that are obvious in the way in which they affect Australian families. They are significant and need to be detailed. I have mentioned the greater contribution that average wage earners will make to the revenue-an additional 11.6 per cent or $3,390m. I will indicate to the House the tax relief for which the same families will be eligible in 12 months time. I also indicate the fact that fringe benefits will be taxed-fringe benefits which are part of the average citizen's wage package. The fringe benefits will be knocked off, but there will be no tax concessions for 12 months. That is not fair or equitable, and it does not fit in with the Prime Minister's commitment or that of the Treasurer. I draw attention to another comment by the Prime Minister made on the Willesee program on 4 June: Now I believe that ordinary Mr and Mrs Australia want a fairer system and a more efficient system. I believe they will respond positively to this proposal. Is it equitable to take away concessional rebates from families, to tax fringe benefits, to give concessions for racehorses and to offer tax relief in 12 months time? How will families in Australia be better off by this process? Let us also look at the problems of small business, where taxation is going up. It will increase in the tax package that is being considered by the Government by an additional 3 or 4 per cent. It will go up to 49 per cent. That is the prediction, and I believe that it will be right. There is to be more tax for small business and, on top, a capital gains tax. I will shortly illustrate how that will affect small business. On top of that, there will be a creep in provisional tax involving an additional 3 per cent above the cost of inflation. Inflation is calculated at 8 per cent for the coming 12 months; small business provisional taxation will be 11 per cent. The tax creep is aimed specifically at small business. What about capital gains taxes? They need to be dealt with. Honourable members have said that they will be directed to the wealthy and large landowners. Let us look at the normal storekeeper, the man with a corner shop. A migrant family may buy a business and seek to build it up. Members of the family pay for the goodwill of that store when they buy it. They pay a significant amount to the previous owner and by their hard work and dint of effort seek to build up the real value of that business. They may do it over a period of three years, sell it and move on to another business. The gain is reward for effort. Often such families receive little by way of regular income. Mr Gear —Something you don't know about. Mr CADMAN —If the honourable member opposite can present capital gains taxes to small storekeepers in his electorate I would be very surprised because they are the ones who will be affected. The small businesses of Australia-the man who buys a small factory, expands it and needs to buy something larger-will be affected. The man who buys a small factory and goes broke, makes a capital gain when he sells it if the value of his property has increased. So the Government will be hitting small business in every way. The Government is hitting families and small business. Those are the objections which I have to this Budget. The Government has made no effort to get Australia moving, to tap the real wealth of our nation and the energy of our people. It is attacking families by the way in which it has designed the tax schemes and there is more bad news down the line. For the average family in Australia the Budget means nothing. It was an effort by the Government to appeal to the electorate at large. Basically, the Government has been unsuccessful but next year a lot of people will be looking at their pay packet and deciding for themselves how much worse off they have been under this Budget. The Government's approach to giving no tax cuts for 12 months, the problems experienced with the Australian Council of Trade Unions and resolving what will happen to wages and the decision to instigate a fringe benefits tax and a capital gains tax together with increases in provisional taxes for small businesses, are striking at those people who are the very heart and soul of the productivity drive in Australia. I cannot follow what this Government is about. I refer honourable members to the predictions of some of the banking institutions of this nation and in particular to a media release from the National Australia Bank on Sunday, 18 August on cost pressures on business, which means job pressures and pressures on those who are providing jobs. The survey prediction of the National Australia Bank is that there will be higher costs, higher labour costs and higher overheads in the period ahead. That does not mean that we will see a turnaround in the economy or in employment. I feel very gloomy about the whole net picture because all the factors are there to take away incentive from individuals and to have government dampen down the running of this country to such an extent that it will fulfil the prophecies made of it by honourable members on this side of the House prior to the last election. They said the Government would be a high taxing, high spending government. Those prophecies have been fulfilled far beyond the wildest dreams of anybody on this side of the House. Nobody on this side of the House could have dreamed that there would be an attack on Australian families and small business in the way in which this Government has gone about its business. We would have thought that honourable members on the other side of the chamber who have an interest in this area would have been more effective in their advocacy, both in the Caucus and in public. They have not been and that is a disappointment to us. It will prove to be a great disappointment to Australian families and Australian small business. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(6.25) —Despite the desperate attempts by members of the Liberal and National Party Opposition to discredit the Budget brought down by Treasurer Paul Keating on 20 August, it is patently evident that the general community reaction has been extremely positive. It is apparent that thinking Australians have welcomed the initiatives taken. They have also applauded the courage and readiness of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in particular, the Treasurer and the Cabinet to make hard decisions in the interests of advancing this nation's economic regrowth and resurrection. I believe that the assessments made by independent economic commentators back up this contention. Peter Cole-Adams stated in the Age that the Budget: . . . made a lot more sense than most budgets that were brought down over the past 15 years. Gregory Hywood, of the Australian Financial Review, stated: The Government can demand considerable kudos from striking a Budget-for the first time in a quarter of a century-that has reduced spending, revenue and the deficit as a proportion of GDP. The National Farmers Federation stated: The Government's intention in the Federal Budget to reduce the deficit by $1.8 billion is commendable. Even Sir William McMahon, a former Liberal Treasurer, said that he approved of the Budget decisions because they are `in the best interest of the nation'. I think the overall response to the Budget was fairly summed up by the Australian, which, on 22 August, stated: In a generally positive reaction, business welcomed Tuesday night's budget as responsible and a step in the right direction. When one considers all the measures that were brought down in that document and when one considers the substance of it one can understand why there has been such positive support, whether it be for housing, the youth package, the emphasis on community-based services, the road grants that have doubled since 1982, the additional money for rural producers, the new deal for the young student and the unemployed, the all-out attack on poverty traps, as my colleague from Townsville has mentioned, defence or the continuing strategy for job creation. All of these areas demonstrate just how the Government's priorities have been set. At the same time there has been a massive reduction in the deficit, a reduction in government outlays as a percentage of gross domestic product and a hold on taxes. Regardless of what measure is used-I borrow an analogy used by the Prime Minister-the Hawke Labor Government has put the runs on the board since it came to office in March 1983. That does not mean that all our problems have been solved. I accept that the situation is far from that. But certainly, given the enormity of the economic problems left by the previous Liberal National Government and given the limitations on government resources and the need to cut back government spending, the Hawke Labor Government has proved itself to be the best economic administration this nation has experienced. I admit there are still some problems and I will comment on one of them. As the economy recovers and strengthens it is my fervent hope that greater attention will be given to addressing and redressing the special difficulties and disadvantages faced by the tens of thousands of Australian families who reside outside the major provincial and capital cities. In saying this, I am aware that this Labor Government, in stark contrast to the previous Liberal-National coalition, has acted to improve the quality of life of rural and country town Australians. Since 1983 this Government has doubled expenditure on roads and upgraded the national highways. It has maintained, in real terms, the financial assistance to local authorities; it has significantly assisted country schools through the participation and equity program; it has improved community employment projects in country towns; it has expanded the isolated patients travel assistance scheme; it has modernised communications; and it has given enormous assistance to rural-based industries. Yet despite these initiatives, people in rural and provincial Australia still bear enormous financial and social costs by living where they do. Distance, isolation, inadequate services, limited retail competition, high freight costs, sales tax on freight, limited recreational and cultural opportunities and poor roads-the list goes on and on-are all part and parcel of the daily lives of rural and provincial dwellers. I readily acknowledge that the task of overcoming the quality of life problems in non-metropolitan and non-provincial city areas is a difficult one. For instance, I am aware that the fuel subsidy given to most rural areas was removed because the scheme was costing Australian taxpayers $117m a year but the benefits were not being passed on to motorists. I am cognisant of the generosity of this Federal Government in the area of road funding. For example, in Queensland roads are still shocking and some road moneys have been used for other projects. Whilst I accept that it is almost an impossible task totally to remove all the disadvantages borne by rural and provincial Australians, I contend they can be justly compensated. I am convinced that the most efficient, simple and fair way to provide this compensation and, in turn, to provide a possible incentive to remain in rural Australia, is to introduce a completely new and innovative zone allowance system. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr WRIGHT —Prior to the suspension of the sitting, I commented that people who live in rural and provincial Australia should be compensated for the disadvantage they bear. The most efficient, simple and fairest way to provide this compensation is to introduce a completely new and innovative zone allowance or rebate system. The current system, which was introduced by the previous Liberal-National Party Government, is based on non-allowance areas, a zone A and zone B and a special zone A and B. This is unfair; pathetically low in benefits and pitted with anomalies and inequities. The Labor Government increased the rebates in 1984 by 25 per cent, but the system needs revamping and replacing and not periodic increases in the rebate allowed. Under the existing Fraser-Anthony zone boundaries only a handful of Australians are eligible to claim the maximum rebate, miserly as it is. Moreover the boundaries have been skilfully drawn to carefully skirt around the more populated country areas. To be doubly sure that the eligibility for the special zone allowances is as restrictive as possible the previous Government added a proviso so that despite the distance from the capital anyone living within 250 kilometres of a population centre of 2,500 or more people is not eligible or entitled to claim under the special zone category. This means that anyone living within 250 kilometres of Mount Isa in Queensland, Mount Newman in Western Australia, Katherine or Alice Springs in the Northern Territory is eligible only for the zone A rebate of $270 per year, not the special zone A rebate of $938. Let us compare this with zone B areas. All people living within 250 kilometres of such places as Longreach and Charleville in far western Queensland, Burke and Broken Hill in western New South Wales or Kalgoorlie in Western Australia are entitled to claim only the grant sum of $45 a year, instead of the special rebate of, again, $938. It is very easy to see, considering these examples, just how ridiculous and unfair is the 250 kilometres radius concept. It is quite obvious that distance and isolation meant little to the previous Liberal-National Party Government. Similarly, no recognition is given under the existing scheme to the fact that areas of inadequate services and high costs of living are to be found not only in western and central Australia but also in the small townships and rural areas close to many of the provincial cities. Many of these towns, like their western counterparts, lack access to public transport. Real retail competition is lacking and the availability of government and community services is limited. Certainly, the disadvantages are more obvious in the more distant townships. This morning I conducted a survey of prices, just to prove this point. Petrol in Brisbane can be bought at between 47c and 52c a litre. In Longreach it is 64c a litre and in Mount Isa as high as 65.9c. Bread is 92c a loaf in Brisbane and $1.20 in Longreach. Butter costs $1.35 for 500 grams in Rockhampton and $1.77 in Longreach. Small packets of cornflakes cost 95c in Rockhampton and $1.60 in Longreach. Milk in Brisbane costs 76c a litre but in Longreach it is 94c a litre. Potatoes in Brisbane cost $1.49 a kilo and in Mount Isa $3.99. A tyre for a Gemini in Brisbane costs $58 but in Mount Isa it costs $73.50. The Sunday Mail, Queensland's main weekend paper, costs 40c in Brisbane and $1 in Mount Isa. A carton of beer costs $15.99 on average in Brisbane and, I am told, the cost in Mount Isa is as high as $19.99. At these prices, the $45 a year zone rebate for Longreach, for example, would not compensate even for the difference in the price of potatoes, and barely for the weekend papers, let alone freight, fuel and other every day domestic needs. How then can anyone argue that those living still further north-west in Winton should receive only the lowest rebate of $45 because it is within 250 kilometres of Longreach? There are anomalies galore. At Moranbah, in my own electorate and two hours drive south-west of Mackay, fuel is up to 6c a litre dearer than in Mackay. Mackay is in zone B but Moranbah residents are not eligible for any zone rebate whatsoever. The present system is clearly unjust and should be scrapped and replaced by a new scheme based on local authority divisions on a category of city, town or shire and also on the distance from the capitals and major provincial cities. Such a system would give true weight to isolation, distance and the cost of living. It would allow also for consideration to be given to those small towns outside the major populated centres where prices can be just as exorbitant and services virtually non-existent. Simplicity would prevail in the claiming of rebates and also in the monitoring of zone rebate claims if areas were based on local authority regions, because everyone knows in what local government area he resides. Rebates obviously need to be significantly increased to compensate more fairly these Australians for their loss of purchasing power and the disadvantages they experience. If the rebates are sufficiently high they could remove the constant agitation for fuel subsidies, education allowances and freight subsidies and also more importantly they will properly compensate those disadvantaged Australians. Because of the agreed limitations on speakers in this debate, time does not allow me to develop this proposal further, but I give notice to this House that over the next 12 months I shall vigorously pursue this issue and will seek support from both sides of the chamber because I believe that this issue is vital to many Australian families and is above party politics. Mr SMITH(Bass)(8.07) —I am also aware of the constraints on time. I speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1985-86 in the context of welfare issues. The Liberal Party and the Federal Opposition have a commitment, which is well documented, to cutting government expenditure and reducing the influence of government in the lives of individuals. Over this century there has been a growth in the Western world of the concept of a welfare state. In particular this has been true of Australia. Yet one is justified in questioning the explosion in welfare expenditure if one is not convinced that wholesale expenditure in the welfare area is necessarily the most appropriate manner in which to aid those most in need. That does not condemn one as lacking in social conscience or compassion. There is ample evidence of the need to reduce the welfare budget. There can be no serious doubt that such a reduction can be achieved without a curtailment of the essential help being proffered to those most in need of assistance. The Government needs to realise that a reduction in government expenditure, without which we will bequeath to future generations a bankrupt nation, is both desirable and obtainable. It can be achieved without disadvantaging those most in need. We need priorities in welfare expenditure to be clearly enunciated and then acted upon. After all, the welfare component of this year's Federal Budget is very large. Expenditure on the Department of Community Services and the Department of Social Security amount to about $19,007m, which represents a massive 27.6 per cent of all budgetary outlays. It is not only the largest single outlay in the Budget but also the largest increase in outlays in purely monetary terms. Expenditure has increased by about 7 per cent over last year's level-slightly below the average increase across all departments of 8.4 per cent. There has to be a firmer commitment to reducing government expenditure as a prelude to lowering the overall level of taxation in this nation. Within the framework of the entire Budget, social security now looms as a monster which poses long term threats to the stability of the nation's economic and political systems. We are rapidly becoming a nation dependent on government assistance and are moving away from a family-oriented society. Governments must address the issue of establishing clear and easily identifiable priorities for welfare expenditure. We in the Liberal Party have a clear vision about how to best address welfare expenditure. Our principal concerns must be-indeed, from our side of politics they are-the family, those caught in poverty traps, youth and the unemployed and those who require for some reason or other government support. Let us examine growth areas in welfare expenditure over the past decade. It is quite apparent that something is very sadly wrong with how we have directed the bulk of our welfare expenditure. About 70 per cent of the increase in the welfare bill over the past 10 years is the result of the combination of a deterioration in the economy and changes in social attitudes to matters such as divorce and single parenthood. The number of people in receipt of unemployment benefits has increased seventeen-fold, while there are now almost five times the number of people receiving supporting parents benefits. The additional costs in these two areas alone account for almost 60 per cent of the total increase in the social welfare budget in the past decade. My colleague the present shadow Minister for Finance has indicated that a deliberate perception has been fostered over the past two years that this Government has been redressing great social wrongs in the application of its welfare expenditure decisions. This is just an absolute furphy. This Government must rank as the most anti-family government this nation has ever had to endure. It is to this issue I wish to address myself. The only organisation which has been in a position to provide the information necessary for governments to plan for family oriented policies has been the Institute of Family Studies, a body established by the Fraser Liberal Government. The Institute was established under the auspices of the Family Law Act to, and I quote: Promote, by the conduct, encouragement and co-ordination of research and other appropriate means, the identification of, and development of understanding of, the factors affecting marital and family stability in Australia. However, this Government in its 1985-86 Budget has effectively given the Institute an operating Budget more than 40 per cent below that which it possessed last financial year. I remind honourable members that we are not talking of massive financial savings in this regard. The Institute's budget for this coming year is estimated at $736,000 and the savings on last year's expenditure amount to a little under $500,000-this in a Budget the total outlays of which exceed $69 billion. Budgetary receipts for this financial year are up by 12.6 per cent and outlays are up by 8.4 per cent. However, the only institution designed to foster understanding of the problems facing the families of this nation is being forced to bear an enormously disproportionate burden by having its budget almost halved. The extremely important work of the Institute cannot be praised too highly, yet its tremendous value is unfortunately not fully appreciated by many in this Parliament or in the community at large. It has become apparent that the priorities of this Government are well and truly different from mine, those of the Liberal Party of Australia and those of the vast majority of people in this nation. The Director of the Marriage Guidance Council of Western Australia has recently pointed out the absurdity of this and previous governments' priorities regarding the position and the role of the family in our society. In Australia we have now reached the situation where the Federal Government will spend this financial year something in the region of $1,250m on divorce and only $4.1m on marriage support services. Government expenditure on marriage education throughout the whole of Australia amounts to approximately $100,000. The simple fact is that present government policy appears to favour divorce over marriage. Expenditure on marriage support and counselling amounts to no more than 0.3 per cent of that spent on divorce. What appalls me about this current expenditure priority is that it does not reflect the priorities of the people of this nation. Even those present at the misnamed July taxation summit recognised that the entire cumbersome income transfer system has progressively discriminated against families with children in favour of families without children. Yet, over the past five years or so, the Australian public, according to the evidence available from the Institute of Family Studies, has gradually undergone a re-emphasising of family life and the stability that a family environment can provide. The major findings of the surveys on family life and attitudes to marriage are quite interesting. While everyone seems to focus on the 40 per cent of marriages that end in divorce, we must recognise that at least 60 per cent of all marriages will last for a lifetime. Among 18 to 34-year olds, 90 per cent of those who were unmarried stated that they expected to marry. Only 4 per cent of those said that they never wanted to have children. Two-thirds of children say that they are happy with the assistance they receive from being in a family. The family support networks study indicated that the main source of help of all types was the family. Only 12.2 per cent of families were single parent families. Over 60 per cent of married women work in either full or part time employment. The Australian values study indicated that in 1983 some 87.5 per cent of all people in the age range 14 to 60 years believed marriage and family to be the primary units of society. The Australian Bureau of Statistics indicated that in 1982 there were almost five and a half million children living in families in Australia. In combination with these findings, which are clearly indicative of the healthy and primary nature of family life in our community, recent studies have indicated that many marriage breakdowns are both unnecessary and avoidable. It has been quite competently argued that an increase in the budget for the National Marriage Guidance Council of between $2m and $3m a year would save the Government in the order of $21m currently spent on divorce and its associated costs. Additionally, the only body in this nation capable of providing the necessary data in relation to families is the very same body which is being forced by this Government to suffer a 40 per cent reduction in the funds available to it. Because of such reductions, the Institute of Family Studies will not be able to proceed with the publication of a number of important research papers dealing with various aspects of family life in Australia, among which are `Young People Leaving Home', `Trends in Getting Married', `The Effects of Divorce on Adolescence', `Divorce and Young Children', `Family Support Networks' and `The Economic Consequences of Marriage Breakdown'. The curtailment of the publication of the last mentioned report is particularly disappointing as it was to be one of the most wide-ranging and penetrative reports on family life and marriage yet undertaken. The study was to form an important part of the Institute's family reformation project and in fact was also an integral element of the research program for the Law Reform Commission's review of matrimonial property in Australia. Currently when a marriage collapses and the couple cannot agree over property settlement, the Family Court of Australia is given a wide discretion to reallocate all of the couple's property between them in a just and equitable manner, a process which I am sure all will agree leads to uncertainty and undue expense. What the paper has indicated, and what could have become in general far better illustrated had the Institute been in a position to finalise and publish its report, is that, in 25 per cent of cases, maintenance arrangements entered into at the time of separation cease to be honoured. A quarter of those who have their marriages dissolved fail to honour either their commitments or their obligations. One-tenth of all couples who marry end up shirking their own obligations, not only to their respective former spouses and children but also to society. The cost to the general taxpaying public has escalated at an alarming rate in the past five years. In 1980 the estimated government expenditure as a result of marital breakdown amounted to $560m. This year it is anticipated to exceed $1,200m. This ever-increasing financial burden cannot be tolerated for very much longer and in fact my colleague Senator Fred Chaney has recently indicated that we in the Liberal Party will examine very closely the massive increases which have occurred in the supporting parents benefits area of the social welfare budget. A commitment to examination must not be assumed to imply a commitment to reduce payments to those who are genuinely in need, nor even to deny the essential justice in the provision of a basic living allowance for those who are in the position of being single and supporting parents. Let it not be forgotten that the cost to the taxpayers of supporting parents benefits has incraesed by nearly five times in the past decade. A very large percentage of this is due to the failure adequately to ensure that maintenance arrangements are enforced. The priority of this Government and all successive governments should be the positive encouragement of the family and the value which accrues from a family oriented society. That this is not the case can be readily ascertained by recognising the ease with which separation and divorce can now be achieved and the relative ease with which any financial responsibilities arising from such settlements can be avoided. The simple fact is that a family which stays together in the majority of cases faces an identical financial responsibility which cannot be so easily avoided. Yet, what is the attitude of this Government to the family? I think this is very obvious to any who examine not only the figures and information outlined already but also two or three further key factors; namely, the declining level of family allowances and the attitude expressed by senior Ministers to this; the poor level of child care facilities despite much government rhetoric to the contrary and taxation policies which quite plainly and openly discriminate against families. Expenditure on family allowances-one of the great and enduring social legacies of the Fraser Government-has been increasing at a rate much below that of many other areas of social welfare expenditure. In June of last year there were slightly fewer than 2,200,000 families in Australia. These families support almost 4,500,000 children and dependent students under 25 years of age. This represents almost 25 per cent of our total population-and let us not forget that even though the most recent census figures indicate a total of 50.4 per cent of our population as being under the age of 30 years, it is an inescapable fact that since 1975 our fertility rate has been consistently below that which is required for natural replacement. Mr Goodluck —Shame! I have a family of five. Mr SMITH —As the honourable member for Franklin interjects, his performance is exemplary, partly because he was born under the zodiac sign of taurus the bull, I am sure. In fact, our fertility rate had been steadily declining since the early 1960s. At a time in our history when one would have assumed that the Government would be taking positive steps in relation to the family, we find that the reverse is the case. Professor Henderson found a decade ago that there was a very clear link between large families and poverty. He indicated that, whereas only 6 per cent of families with one or two children lived in or near poverty, 38 per cent of families with five or more children lived in or near poverty. In order to lessen the impact of poverty on families, the Fraser Government introduced a progressive family allowance system. Family allowance are not, by their nature, a welfare payment. Granted, they are paid by the Department of Social Security, but in essence they are a taxation relief measure the benefits of which cannot be denied to those families who are in the financial position of paying little or no taxation. Family allowances have been viewed until now as an entitlement to assist families with the cost-often prohibitive-of raising children. They must continue to be seen as such. Yet in recent months there have been quite unmistakable indications that such will not be the view taken by this Government. Movements towards a parential means test and reducing family allowance payments to a flat rate are viewed with great consernation by me and all who believe that the family unit must remain the basic unit of our society. Of course, members of the Government undoubtedly will claim that they are directing welfare payments to those deserving the same, which is utter nonsense. A flat rate family allowance is estimated to save the Government $332.4m in a full year; yet those supposedly most in need of assistance will receive not a single cent more than they receive at present. In any case, who are more deserving of financial assistance than the families of Australia? As is its wont, this Government has demonstrated that here is yet another area where its incompetence and misunderstanding of the essential issues involved defy belief, and has clearly indicated that its priorities lie somewhere other than with the family. I point out that Senator Tate, who, interestingly enough, is chairman of one of the Government Caucus committees, said today that he was most disturbed to see that the Institute had had such a massive cutback. It is quite interesting to note that the Institute comes under the jurisdiction of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). Also, the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), when speaking to the Australian Council of Social Services this week, said: `We face complicated questions. We need regular research'. Here we see that the only body in Australia that can provide that research has had its funding cut to such an extent that the Director of the Institute and its Chairman, Mr Justice Ashe, have called today, in the Institute's annual report, for the Government either to give the Institute the money it needs or to close it down. It is a most lamentable state of affairs. In conclusion, I can only reiterate my commitment to the family. Australia is predominantly a young nation with a large number of young families. If our nation is to grow in the direction in which it should, far more has to be done to assist them. Taxation relief must be afforded to such families. If we as a nation do not do more to help these young families, we will almost certainly alter in a very real and damaging way the fabric of our society. The family is the cornerstone of our society and we must buttress the institution of the family and not in any way discriminate against it. Mr GAYLER(Leichhardt)(8.23) —That area of Australia north of the twenty-fifth degree of latitude-that is, the area north of Bundaberg in Queensland and Carnarvon in Western Australia-comprises half our land mass but contains only 800,000 of our people. I would like tonight to inform the House of the enormous potential of northern Australia, the aspirations of its inhabitants and the positive steps the Hawke Labor Government is taking in regard to northern development. From the gasfields of the North West Shelf to the Barrier Reef Islands, from the goldfield at Telfer in the Great Sandy Desert to the goldfield at Kidston to the south-west of Cairns, just 5 per cent of our people are now developing the north, and I am confident that what is now a tough frontier of Australia will reach its full potential and make an enormous contribution to the Australia of our generation and future generations. This Government is providing positive leadership in this development of northern Australia. In contrast, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), selecting his front bench, has signalled to the people of the north that he is willing to abandon them for the sake of the south-eastern corner; that the years of neglect of successive conservative governments will continue if ever there comes the sorry day that the economic vandals opposite again hold the treasury bench. Apart from specific items of expenditure, some of which I will detail later, the recent Budget introduced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) is of benefit to those Australians living in the northern half of the country. In reforming the Australian economy after the wreckers of the Fraser Government had ravaged it for seven long years, in halving inflation and in reducing unemployment, this Government has been of benefit to all Australians, including those living in northern Australia. The benefits of the Hawke Government's magnificent economic record are being felt as much in the north of the country as they are in the south Of course, there are problems. Northern Australia depends more upon world commodity prices for its massive exports of agricultural and mining products and, as all honourable members will be aware, these industries are taking a buffeting on world markets at the moment. The great sugar industry, in particular, is experiencing its gravest crisis. In response to this crisis the Government has put forward proposals to the Queensland Government. It has proposed a plan which includes financial assistance for the industry but which to date has been ignored by the aging and increasingly intractable Premier of Queensland. Other industries, such as the bauxite, copper and tin industries, are suffering similar, if less dramatic, problems due to world market pressures. While we may have to wait for world prices to increase before these industries are again prosperous, there are encouraging signs in the development of other industries in northern Australia. Iron ore development in the north-west continues apace, as do the development of new gold mines and the diamond mine at Argyle and the North West Shelf development, and oil exploration holds great promise. The tourism industry-an industry which has been greatly assisted by the initatives of this Government-looks set to boom. Northern Australia now has four international gateways-at Cairns, Townsville, Darwin, and Port Hedland-and, given the natural attractions right across the north, we can be most confident of future expansion in tourism related industries. In particular, the Government's most commendable Priority One initiatives for youth outlined in the Budget could see a significant number of traineeships for 16- and 17-year-olds in the tourism industry. The mining potential of northern Australia is, I believe, yet to be realised, while there are exciting new developments in agriculture. These include the production of tropical fruits for South-East Asian markets as well as for domestic consumption, and dramatic breakthroughs in mariculture which could soon see widespread farming of barramundi, prawns, mudcrabs and other seafood. Obviously, if we are to unlock the vast potential of northern Australia it is incumbent upon the Government to provide the necessary social infrastructure, and this is where the Budget has been of positive benefit, within general fiscal restraint, to the north. Above all, communications are vitally important to future development, and I am pleased to say that the Government has taken positive steps to improve communications throughout provincial and remote Australia. The launch of Aussat I in August heralds a new era in communications. For the first time in our history, every Australian-I repeat, every Australian-will have access to facilities which are now taken for granted in the cities but are unknown in the bush. Homesteads, small rural communities and business will all be able to utilise Aussat in a manner in which their city cousins have been doing for years. Under the direction of the Government, Telecom Australia has undertaken the task of providing remote Australians with access to telephone services by 1990 using terrestrial links, and we have also made provision, under our equalisation policy, for the three commercial television licences across Australia within three years. When one speaks of communications, of course, roads are paramount. Under the excellent stewardship of the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris), the Government has launched the greatest civil works program since Federation. The Australian land transport program, combined with the Australian bicentennial roads development program, will see the expenditure of a total of $1,245m this financial year, with much of that money being spent in northern Australia. As the program is to last for five years, State and Territory governments can now turn their attention to the development of rural and arterial roads, secure in the knowledge that funds will continue to flow until 1990 and beyond. The Government is confident of its commitment under the ABRD that national roads will be developed to a quality, all-weather standard by the bicentennial year. This will be of enormous benefit to northern Australia for the movement of produce and especially for tourism. In the area of primary production, this Government is again putting its predecessor to shame. Not only are we willing to take the hard decisions from which the Fraser Government ran, but our policies are being instituted for the long term good of the nation, just as they were under the Curtin and Chifley governments during the period of post-war reconstruction. From 1 November the 2.4c per litre excise on diesel fuel used by farmers will be rebated in full, at a cost to the Government of $35m in a full year. For the fishing industry alone, the full rebate should be worth $5m to $6m. As well, in recognition of the northern prawn fishery, we have provided in excess of $3m towards lowering the cost to operators of a licence buy-back scheme. Together with industry contributions, almost $43m will be spent on the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication scheme currently under way in northern Australia. While the sums are smaller, I am sure all Australians in the north would welcome the Government's allocations to counter the screw-worm fly and for the exotic diseases awareness program. Grants for agricultural research have risen by over 20 per cent following this year's Budget to an all time high. Before I outline other benefits of the recent Budget apart from those in the area of primary industry, I would like to digress so that I might congratulate farmers' organisations and the National Farmers Federation for their pragmatic and just attitude in that rather than automatically giving their allegiance to a political group they are willing to negotiate with all political parties to get the best deal for their members. For too long, the conservative parties have treated the rural vote as their god-given right and thus they have become contemptous of the votes of farmers and their families. They have neglected the bush because they thought they had it in the bag. How wrong they were. Rural people are the backbone of this country and among their many attributes they can pick a charlatan when they see one, and they have seen the carpetbaggers and the hucksters of the National Party for what they are-men who have more empathy for the multinational than they do for the honest bloke in the bush, men whose sympathies lie in the board rooms of Sydney and Melbourne, not in the farm houses and settlements of northern and outback Australia. I say to the National Farmers Federation: Come and talk to this Government. We are delivering good government to the nation as a whole and we will continue to do so. Let us sit down and talk-negotiate-and the Australian Labor Party will give you the best deal it can. Obviously, many of the sound judgments contained in this year's Budget-things such as youth policies, education and welfare spending-cannot be broken down to see how they reflect on northern Australia alone, but the point is that our economic policies are working to the benefit of the north just as they benefit all Australians. Decisions we have taken in relation to defence of late reflect the Government's concern for the north. All three services are upgrading their commitment to the most vulnerable part of Australia, northern Australia. The Budget allocations of $28m this financial year for the continued development of an FA18 Hornet base at Tindal in the Northern Territory, and $22m for a bare base in Derby, Western Australia. As well, the Royal Australian Air Force has shortlisted sites on Cape York for the establishment of a base similar to that in Derby, thus completing a northern defence network for the Air Force. I would expect my colleague the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) to announce the siting of the Cape York facility by the end of the year. The Army is also taking a keen interest in north Queensland. The chiefs of staff have foreshadowed the establishment of an Army Reserve unit, to be known as Nor-East Force, similar to the Pilbara Regiment and Norforce, based on the existing 51st Independent Rifle Company. The Royal Australian Navy, in playing its part, has recently decided to transfer five landing craft from Brisbane to Cairns. There is no doubt that the north of Australia is our most vulnerable area military, and I applaud both the Government and the Services for their efforts and recognition of this fact. I refer now to the allocation to Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders in my electorate and northern Australia. The Budget has indicated a marked, and very welcome, shift in the Government's priorities. Funding will now be increased in those areas, which will promote the health, physical living conditions and social interaction of disadvantaged Aboriginal and Islander communities. Programs will be primarily targeted at town camps and isolated communities-areas that have been ignored and forgotten for so long-where infant mortality and the general incidence of disease are much higher than in the general population. In conclusion, I commend this Budget for the forward looking view it has taken in regard to the people of far northern Australia and, in particular, far northern Queensland. These people are not being forgotten, as they were in the past. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(8.34) —It is my pleasure tonight to reply to the Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Keating). I remind the people of Australia that the Federal Labor Government will outlay $69 billion and will receive $64 billion under this Budget, which will leave a deficit of $5 billion. Of course, this is one of our record deficits. In the last three years we have seen record highs in deficit budgeting. I think it is important to understand that the 12 1/2 per cent increase in total tax take represents a real increase of 7 per cent. Mr John Brown —That is because more people went to work. Mr IAN CAMERON —That is the figure for the August Budget and it does not represent what is going to come out in the taxation proposals tomorrow night or Thursday night, Brownie, whichever night it may be. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! Mr IAN CAMERON —We have to add on those increases. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Maranoa. Mr IAN CAMERON —That's me. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Maranoa will resume his seat. The honourable member will not resume his speech if he carries on in the manner that he has in the last few seconds. He will refer to the Minister by his correct title and he will not reply, when the Chair addresses him: `That's me'. He will show a bit of responsibility and behave in the manner in which a member who has been here the length of time he has knows he should behave. I also remind honourable members on my right that all interjections are out of order. Mr IAN CAMERON —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I receive your words of wisdom. As I said, tomorrow night the Labor Government will bring down a new tax package on top of what we are debating tonight. This new tax package will add an enormous amount of extra taxation; it will probably take the real tax increase to 10 or 12 per cent. The tax increase now is 7 per cent. If we look back at the figures we will see that probably that is a record. Of course, the Hawke Labor Government made a lot of play about the diesel fuel rebate and all the good it has done for the farmers. That rebate will cost the Treasury $23m in a full year. The 2.4c a litre increase will bring the rebate up to 10.007c a litre. I have been the National Party of Australia spokesman on fuel for a number of months and my secretary and I have done a lot of work in this area. We have found that in actual fact farmers will be worse off this year than they were in the previous year. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) will understand that because he knows how badly off most tourist resorts are as a result of the excessive tax that these resorts have to pay on their large fuel purchases. Farmers are now paying up to $600m in fuel taxes. Under the Hawke socialist Government each farm household is paying $3,500 compared with the average Australian household, which is paying $1,300. I think that is a disgusting state of affairs. I think the indirect taxes which the Labor Government is imposing on all Australians are disgusting. Of course, farmers are being asked to pay three times as much as the average Australian in this tax. We saw 50,000 farmers outside Parliament on 1 July screaming for a fair go. I agree with them. It is high time the Hawke Government gave rural Australia a fair go. Of course, there are some good things in the Budget for the electorate of Maranoa-that great electorate which covers one-third of Queensland and which is ten times the size of Tasmania. We have a tremendous communication problem in this large rural electorate. Of course, Charleville is fortunate enough to have been allocated $550,000 in the Budget for the establishment of an AM radio station about 19 kilometres north of Charleville. Mr McGauran —Due to your representation. Mr IAN CAMERON —That is due to the consistent representations by the former excellent member for Maranoa, Mr Jim Corbett. Of course, I have not slacked on the task since I became the member for Maranoa. Program testing from that AM radio station will commence at the end of June next year. We hope that there will be a final allocation in next year's Budget of $57,000 for that station. On 24 September Mr Bill Pollock will go to Rolleston to open Australia's first digital radio subscriber trunk dialling system. I believe Telecom Australia is doing an excellent job in converting the telephone systems, particularly in rural Australia, to STD. Those rural areas have to catch up with the cities in Australia. Most people in the cities receive their STD facility free of charge. An awful lot has been said of late in this House by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) about cross-subsidisation, et cetera. I want to say here tonight that I believe most rural Australians more than pay for their telephone. We are the only sector that has to pay. We pay $600 and more to have our phone converted to STD. Imagine charging people in Brisbane $600 to have their phone converted to STD. There would be a riot. But that is what we have to pay. In addition, if we want a new telephone we have to pay $1,200 to $1,300 to have it installed, I know that there is a lot of argument about cross-subsidisation. The fact that those who live in rural areas receive telephone calls, as well as making them, is never taken into consideration. In my mind, the most important thing that has happened in Australia probably in the last half a dozen years in the launch of the satellite. Very little has been said in this place about the launch of the satellite, and that is a pity. It is a special night tonight for me to make a call on behalf of all those people in the bush who will receive a television signal, as well as a radio signal, via the satellite for the first time. It is important that we note what has happened in this area. The Homestead and Community Broadcasting Satellite Service was established originally to give people in inland Australia television reception for the first time. The service had tremendous backing from many honourable members on this side of the House, particularly members of the National Party of Australia. The Isolated Children's Parents Association, the ICPA, has done a tremendous amount of work in this area. Aussat Pty Ltd is capitalised to $100m. Telecom Australia has put in $25m. It is now a self-generating company. Hopefully, we will see it go from stength to strength. The final call payment of $2.3m for Aussat has been allocated in the Budget. Of course, the satellite is now up and running. I believe it is important for me to run through some of the history of Aussat. I remind honourable members on the other side of the House and the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, who is at the table, that many bad things are said about Malcolm Fraser. I guess one of the better things that the Fraser Government did was to establish a committee, headed by Eric Robinson, a past Minister in this place, to examine the feasibility of establishing a satellite system. The committee recommended in 1978 that work commence on establishing and building a satellite. In October 1979 the then Government decided that it would proceed with planning and design. On 5 November 1981 Aussat was incorporated in the Australian Capital Territory. The satellite communications legislation became law in 1984. The legislation regulates certain aspects of the company's ownership structure, operations, et cetera. The people who will benefit from the satellite are those who live in inland Australia. Many areas in Australia are not able to receive a satellite signal. Some people who live in Sydney and Melbourne do not have the benefit of a satellite signal. Perhaps this is because they live behind a high rise building-or a wheat silo. These people will benefit from the satellite system by way of better television reception. The major users, of course, will be the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, commercial television and radio stations, the Department of Aviation, the Department of Defence, administrative departments, Telecom, private enterprise, manufacturers and major retailers. Companies such as Myer and the big banks will use it to keep in rapid touch with their customers. Of course, they will probably want to do that in view of the way in which interest rates are running. They will want to find out whether they still have their customers at the end of the week. The Hawke Government thinks it is good for business to have interest rates running at 20 per cent. After Telecom, Queensland has been the first State in Australia to sign up for the use of the satellite. QNET has been established by the National Party Government in Queensland to service that vast State. Aussat will enable roughly 650,000 people to receive a television signal for the first time. I guess the same number of people will be able to receive a wireless signal. There are three Aussat satellites. One has been launched. The present Aussat satellite is in a geostationary orbit, which means that it will remain at a constant height of 36,000 kilometres above the equator, moving at the same speed and in the same direction as the earth's rotation. That means that the satellite will remain in a stationary position approximately north-east of Papua New Guinea and will send down a signal across Australia. The satellite weighs 655 kilograms-I think that is right-and it is 2.2 metres in diameter and 6.6 metres high. In position it extends itself and is operated through solar power. It is placed at 160 degrees on the equator. Unfortunately, as we remember from the night of the launch, it is a little out of plumb. I spoke to Aussat today about the problem. It has sent a team to Japan to negotiate with the Japanese. The Japanese have a satellite practically in the same place. I am told that the Aussat satellite is approximately 700 kilometres from the Japanese satellite, which to us, I guess, seems quite a separation, but in space it is pretty close; it is a bit close for comfort. The intention is to move them a little further apart. The reason is that the dishes which are set up on the ground have to be at the right angle and at the right degree to get the best signal. The satellite has been tested. I am informed that the tests indicate that it is perfect. In fact, the satellite is actually performing better than the specifications which have been laid down. The life of the satellite is seven years. The next satellite will be launched in November. Therefore, Aussat will have two satellites to beam down signals through the HACBSS within a fairly short time. Each satellite has two 12-watt national beams and four 30-watt spot beams. The spot beams are located over Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Northern Territory and Western Australia. The ABC is leasing transponders for television, radio 2 and radio 3, and FM stereo. For those honourable members who are interested in radio, the uplink signal will be received on 14 to 14.5 gigahertz and the downlink transmission will be received on 12.25 to 12.75 gigahertz. There will be remote area commercial television services. The licence holders will be given authority to operate. I ask the Government to announce-I think that the inquiry has been completed-which are the successful groupings so that those in the bush know what to expect from them. We would like to know who is going to have the licences. The broadcasters expect to be telecasting by July next year. The first satellite was launched by mission 51-1, the space shuttle Discovery, and was placed in orbit after some problems. The second satellite is due to be launched in November by space shuttle. The third satellite will be launched in June 1986 from French Guyana by the European Space Agency on the Ariane rocket. I just hope that it goes better than the last one that was put up. As we have heard, the poor French President was standing there and it had to be blown out of the air. Two satellites were lost. The latest satellite will have a life of 10 years because it has been placed in its proper orbit by the rocket. Using the shuttle makes such a difference. The shuttle releases the satellite and the satellite has to use its own jet propulsion to find its proper orbit. That is the reason the satellite can remain in place another two or three years longer. That is one of the reasons why it is being used. The satellite will be monitored by two control stations, in Sydney and Perth. Smaller earth stations will be required in electorates such as Maranoa. The people of Maranoa will need a dish of between 1.2 metres and 1.5 metres. I have mentioned before that I believe the Treasurer has a wonderful opportunity to include in his taxation package which he will introduce tomorrow night the removal of sales tax on these dishes which in a package form cost $3,000. Ministers in the House at the moment should go into the Cabinet meeting and say to the Treasurer: `This is a great opportunity. Instead of belting farmers around the head with capital gains taxes, what about a bit of sales tax alleviation-what about taking a bit of sales tax off these products? People in the bush who have been financing the ABC network through their taxes for the last 20 or 30 years have never received a television signal from the Corporation. However, the Government sets up this system and then expects these people to pay the exorbitant price of $3,000 for the equipment they need to receive the signal. This is a golden opportunity for those Ministers to talk to the Treasurer and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), their great white leader. He is the friend of the farmers, but what is he doing for us? He is doing nothing. The indoor component of the equipment attracts a 32 1/2 per cent sales tax. Of course, the outdoor equipment attracts a 20 per cent sales tax. The program will start in Queensland in December. Testing will take place in New South Wales and the other States. The Western Australian footprint will receive the first commercial service which is officially due to start on 26 January. I would like to take this opportunity of congratulating the people who manned and helped launch the space shuttle. I would like to congratulate the Hughes space and communications group which manufactured the satellite. It is a great pity that the work was not done here, but I guess such a project is beyond us right now. We used to do these sorts of things. It is amazing that we used to drop bombs and fire rockets into the air at Woomera years ago. However, we do not seem to have the capacity to be able to do it now. I would also like to thank Mr Graham Gosewinckel and his committee which includes Mr Cottee, Mr Dix, Rory Treweeke and the other people who now make up the management team. I wish to conclude my remarks by again referring to the capital gains tax. I think this is an iniquitous new tax. Although no one wants new taxes, the Labor Government seems to want to introduce a whole range of new taxes tomorrow night. All that a capital gains tax will do will be to transfer capital from the private sector to the public sector. The private sector creates the jobs. The people on the other side of the House do not seem to understand that the Government is going to impose an expanded capital gains tax on the private sector in that people will be charged 49c in the dollar every time they make a capital gain after a 12-month period. The Government is going to move half of people's capital from the private sector to the public sector. The Government is screaming about the level of unemployment but it is not prepared to listen. What about the tax that the Government intends to impose on fringe benefits? Most taxpayers enjoy some sort of fringe benefit. But why tax such a benefit? I cannot really work out honourable members opposite. The Government intends to increase to $5,000 the threshold below which tax is not paid. Also, it intends to tax the fringe benefits of people who earn in excess of $5,000. I would say that 99 per cent of these people have fringe benefits of one kind or another. Everybody, including politicians, enjoys some sort of fringe benefits. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) almost got strangled up at Blackwater when the Fraser Government tried to impose a tax on fringe benefits. There is a problem in respect of farms in that the Government now wants to turn around and tax the free milk, free sheep and free board that are given by way of an extra incentive to farm workers and stationhands. I cannot understand why the Government now wants to turn around and tax those items. That is enough from me. In conclusion I want to say how pleased I am that the satellite is up and flying. The inland areas of Australia certainly look forward to receiving a decent television signal. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation)(8.55) —The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) is a typical example of a National Party political schizoid. Before sunset he says: `Cut expenditure, lower taxes, spend less'. However, once the sun goes down he says: `Give me more, spend more, give us the money'. So there is a direct conflict in the National Party's policies. All I say is that we had seven years of disastrous government under honourable members opposite and we do not want to see another minute of it, thank you very much. The people of this country are quite happy with the present situation. The 1985-86 Budget is clear evidence of the Hawke Labor Government's honesty, integrity and economic responsibility. Our policy commitments are precisely that-commitments, not empty election promises calculated to catch some short term support. We promised to reduce the deficit. In 1985-86 it is down 27 per cent from $6,746m to $4,919m. We promised to maintain the trilogy. It is intact. We have maintained and extended the prices and incomes accord. Since we came to office we have created 410,000 new jobs. We have sustained our growth as measured by the gross domestic product over every year of our Government. We inherited a negative growth rate of minus 0.8 per cent. In 1983-84 we converted it into a positive growth rate of 5.2 per cent. In 1984-85 it was a positive growth rate of 4.9 per cent. In this Budget we estimate growth of 4.5 per cent, a figure supported by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Priority one-the needs of youth-will, of course, continue to get substantial assistance in the years ahead. It will protect and assist the nation's greatest asset-our people. In my own portfolio areas, we have continued our commitment to provide Australia with a high standard transport system that meets our economic and social needs. The allocation of $1,462m to surface transport maintains our already high level of effort in an economic, efficient and responsible manner. The lion's share, some $1,245m, will be provided to the States and the Northern Territory for road construction and maintenance, sustaining the major boost we have given to the road construction sector since we came to office. It is 82 per cent more than provided four years ago-the last full year of the Fraser Government. In addition, $562m has been allocated to continue works on the national highway. That national highway is fully funded by the Federal Government, with the States road authorities acting as design and construction agents on our behalf. By 1988 Federal Government expenditure will have totalled over $5 billion to bring the 16,000 kilometre national highway to a high quality, all-weather standard. This is by far the biggest civil works program in Australia's history. Road safety, with a $6.3m allocation, continues to be a particularly high priority. Our 69 per cent increase in funding for road safety since coming to office is wholly justified both in social and financial terms. In addition to the senseless human suffering and annual loss of 3,000 lives, road crashes cost the community around $3 billion a year. We are determined to make every effort to reduce this carnage. The third Keating Budget highlights the great success this Government has had in resurrecting our business enterprises, particularly those which the previous Government tried so hard to bury-the Australian National Line and the Australian National Railways. We are not in the business of selling the people something they already own. That is the ultimate con job of the National Party. Rather, this Government has given both ANL and AN a new lease of life. This has not come easily. There were no simple solutions. We have provided revised legislation to give them greater freedom of action and responsibility, and clear policy directions to enable them to operate in a proper commercial manner. Evidence of our success is readily apparent to even the most vocal and cynical critic. From a loss of $26m in 1982-83, ANL's profit in 1984-85 has improved to the stage where it is expected to be in a position to pay a dividend to the Government this year-the first dividend since 1968-69. Improvements in Australian National's efficiency mean that its call on the taxpayer will be 25 per cent lower this financial year. A total of $72.5m has been allocated to AN, comprising $54.1m for mainland operations and $18.4m for its Tasmanian operations. The payment for Tasmanian operations is the first under an innovative three-year revitalisation package between AN and the Federal Government, totalling $52.4m for Tasrail, as it is now known. The review of the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme by the Inter-State Commission was completed earlier this year. The revised rates of assistance recommended by the Commission came into effect on 1 September this year. Tasmania now has a freight equalisation scheme which is more appropriate to the needs of today. The Government expects to pay out over $25m this year on assistance under the scheme. A further $5.3m will be spent on upgrading marine navigation aids in the north-west of Western Australia in keeping with government policy to stimulate economic development. These improvements will be a great boost for Australia's mining industry, with major economic benefits flowing to both Western Australia and the nation. Turning to Aviation, the Budget allocation of $628m reflects the Government's continued commitment to the aviation industry. Funds for capital expenditure on airways development and airport civil works have been increased in 1985-86 to ensure a high level of service to the aviation industry. Operational and administrative costs, which are paid for by the aviation industry, will be reduced in real terms. This is in keeping with our concern to reduce costs to industry and to run government operations on a commercial basis. Increased funds for major airport developments will include: An amount of $83.9m for Brisbane Airport; $33.9m for Perth international terminal; $1m for Townsville terminal as part of the $14m project; $1m for the Sydney taxiway commencement as part of a $16m project; and $1m for Sydney international terminal as part of a $20m project. An amount of $43.7m will be spent on technical equipment for aviation on projects such as earth stations for national communications satellite; Brisbane airport equipment; and radar for Perth. An amount of $22.7m has been provided for payments under the aerodrome local ownership plan to develop facilities at Broken Hill, Tamworth, Kingscote, Coffs Harbour, Armidale, Cooma and Casino. As part of our emphasis on better commercial practices, $1.01m has been provided towards the establishment of a federal airports corporation. The corporation will control the operation and finances of major capital city and secondary airports as well as Coolangatta and Launceston airports. We are committed to maintaining Qantas Airways Ltd and Trans Australia Airlines in full public ownership. After four successive years of operating losses, Qantas reported operating profits of $58.3m in 1983-84 and $62.3m in 1984-85. TAA's operating loss for 1982-83 was turned to a profit within 12 months and its 1984-85 result is an all-time record profit of $30m. Public enterprise is what the government of the day makes it. The improved performance of transport and aviation public enterprises under our Government, after the dismal performance under those who now sit opposite, says a lot about the Opposition. Those enterprises were the subject of attack, sabotage, denigration and denial of adequate capital during the period of government of those who now sit opposite. For them now to suggest that ownership is a problem is just cheap politics. There was no increase in air navigation charges in the Budget, but there will be adjustments to some regulatory charges in line with consumer price index movements to cover cost increases. These budget allocations recognise the importance of transport to our nation. But the continued growth and development of our national transport network do not depend on dollars alone. Our government has worked hard to increase efficiency within the transport sector to assist economic growth. We have adopted a four-pronged strategy to provide an appropriate operating environment for development to take place. The elements of this strategy are: Reviews of key areas to provide up-to-date information on which cost-effective transport strategies can be developed; overhaul of the four public authority transport enterprises; careful and selective investment of capital funds; and promotion of safe practices. I do not intend to spell out in detail the substantial initiatives we have taken to date in these areas. But I assure honourable members that the Government's four-part strategy is working. The Government is committed to pursuing the policy goals it has set for this nation and will continue to place a high priority on transport and aviation. I am confident that the funds provided in this Budget, the other measures put in place to date and the findings of the various reviews now under way, will provide Australia with a transport network capable of carrying our society and economy into the twenty-first century with optimism and confidence. I commend the Budget to the House. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(9.05) —During the last couple of weeks there has been a lot of talk about ideology. One can define ideology as visionary speculation of what one intends to do in the future in regard to politics. There has been a lot of talk about the Left, the Right, the wets and the dries. I have become a bit confused. I have been listening to many open-line commentators and many so-called experts on politics. They have confused me, and there are many people outside this place who are also confused. Many people have said to me: `Bruce, all the headlines seem to be about those people who talk about their different factions, their little groups and so forth. What is happening to us? What is happening to the ordinary person in the street? Who is representing us? What is happening in Parliament that will affect us?'. They listen to all the speculation, with one person saying one thing and another person saying something else. People agree on one matter and disagree on another. People have been saying to me: `For goodness sake, try to get on with the job of representing us. Tell the people in Canberra who represent us that interest rates are going through the ceiling. We do not understand all of the talk about interest rates. All we understand is that the mortgage repayments are a lot higher and we cannot afford to make the repayments'. They are talking about the changes that are occurring in their daily lives that are not being debated, not being talked about, and not being given one headline in the media. The media seem to speculate about the different caves or factions which, I am afraid, is to the detriment of politicians. As honourable members know, I have a fiery Irish temper. I have been listening to some of the open-liners. Boy, they have denigrated politicians! They do not have one good word to say about us. They runs us into the ground. I suppose that we have nobody to blame but ourselves, because we stick our necks out and we need to get them chopped off. I rang one woman and said to her: `Why don't you have a go? You seem to have all the answers'. As politicians we need to come back at such people by saying a few things that might sort a few of them out. I read the opinions of some experts. I will not mention their names because it is gutless to run down a person using parliamentary privilege. I would rather run them down outside this place. These people are great at saying: `We should be doing this. We should be cutting back on this, or doing this and that'. They would not have a clue. Yet they are running us down by saying that we are not doing the job. They are running down the politicians who are elected by the people to try to do a decent, respectable job of representing them, by bringing forward their aspirations and problems and trying to do the best that we possibly can. Most of us try to do our best. But I am afraid that the caves, the groups, the ideologists, the Left, the Right, the wets, the dries and all the others seem to get all the headlines. Regrettably, all of the other issues are forgotten. We have a problem with regard to the aged. We have been talking about it for years. We all know that Australia has an aging population. We all know that there are terrible problems. But regrettably-and I am just as much to blame; so please forgive me, I am not directing the knife at anybody-we do not say much about them. We pay them a bit of lip service and we talk about the problem, but we do not do very much. Regrettably, the statistics now are showing that by the year 2001 the aged population in Australia will be a tremendous problem. We live in a complicated world. Many people are growing old before their time. Senile dementia is setting in and people do not know where to turn. They have problems in regard to the repayment of mortgages-house problems, et cetera-and all the complications that beset people today. We need to pay more attention to them. Some people jump on gift horses. They try to perpetuate their memories by endowing great community centres, monuments, statues and goodness knows what else. But regrettably, we are not doing very much for the aged. Many people think it is fine for aged people to be placed in institutions. They say: `We can forget about them'. Would it not be far better to use the money which is presently used to build monuments-these memories of the past-to construct, for example, a nice village for the elderly, where they could live in good surroundings and where they could be happy? Would it not be better to do a bit of experimenting and start thinking about this a bit more rather than sometimes going on with the arguments we go on with day after day? Incidentally, I am probably just as much to blame. I think it is about time we settled down and started to realise that we have an aging population and tremendous problems. We have all those yappers around the place-some of the radical feminists. I do not mind child centres and women's refuges if they are run in the right way and they do not get the ear of government to the detriment of other people. Would it not sometimes be better to have a few day care centres for the elderly where children could take the elderly to get a bit of respite help? Would it not be better to set up a chain of those instead of sometimes concentrating on the radicals, the ones who do all the yapping? Incidentally, the elderly cannot speak for themselves. As I mentioned before, some of them get very sick. Many of them are very lonely. They never have a chance to talk to anybody. That is why we have Meals on Wheels. It is not the meal they want; it is the company when the person comes to deliver it. Those sorts of things need to be experimented with. We as a Parliament need to get a little more in tune with some of the problems that are occurring outside the Parliament. I can tell honourable members that they are getting worse rather than better. Sometimes, to our detriment, we think of other things in preference to those problems. That is enough about that. I notice that my friend the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) has just come into the House. The two other members from Tasmania have just come into the House also. The five Tasmanians have a job to do. We have to reconstruct ourselves. People are saying politically that just because we disagree with this or that we are going to be awkward and difficult. We are not. We are going to work as the team we have always worked as and we are going to work towards the goal of the betterment of Tasmania only. I give a bit of advice to the young honourable member for Denison, who has a very brilliant brain. He is a very good member. He is a damned hard worker, but he needs to quieten down a bit. He needs to unwind a bit and take a leaf out of my book. He should get on with the job-and he can do the job. I can tell honourable members that he can write a better letter than anybody I know. He can address a meeting at any given opportunity. He can do all the things that are terribly important. All he has to do is just take his time a bit and boy, the rewards will come. As honourable members know, with my support and help he will go a long way. I have said in this House before that sometimes some people treat the Tasmanians as a bit of a joke. We do not follow any particular ideology. We come to Canberra and try, in our very simple way, to represent the people who sent us here. Everybody in Tasmania knows us. They know all about our history, et cetera. We are just ordinary politicians trying to do a decent job for the ordinary, average people in Tasmania and, I hope, for Australia too. That is all we want to do. We do not want to get involved any more. For example, the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) made a wonderful speech tonight. It was a very thought provoking speech on the family. That is good. We need to tell the people of Tasmania that we can represent them in just the right way and do the best possible job for them in this House. That is enough of that. Mr Hodgman —What about the poem? Mr GOODLUCK —I was going to mention the veterans. I hope that the Labor Party understands that there is concern in the community about the veterans. As I said before, they are getting older and more worried about what will happen to them in the future. They are subject to rumour and whisper in the Returned Services League clubs. They are subject to all those sorts of problems. We need to reassure them. I urge those on the Government side to make absolutely certain that the veterans hear what the Government is saying. We could be political about this, but that is no good. It has worn out its welcome with them. The Government needs to be careful about what it is going to do for them in the future. It should reassure them. A former prisoner of war sent me a letter and cuttings of photographs of what occurred in his prison camp. Most young honourable members do not realise what it was like to be a prisoner of war during those difficult days. We do not understand what it was like to be away from one's family, locked up with little food and suffering from all the illnesses that occurred in those camps. Most honourable members forget about it. Therefore, I have indicated in the past that any prisoners of war should be automatically made totally and permanently incapacitated pensioners because of the problems they have gone through. One prisoner of war sent me a letter which I would like to read. It is from General Sir Thomas Blamey, the Commander-in-Chief of the Australian Military Forces. This letter was written at the time prisoners were released from the camp. The letter states: I extend to you on behalf of all ranks of the Australian Military forces our congratulations on your final release from captivity. Everything possible has been and will be done to ensure you rejoin your families with a minimum of delay and that in the interim your comfort and your needs are thoroughly cared for. Many of you have suffered severly at the hands of the enemy while others, due to variations in conditions, localities and the quality of your captors have been more fortunate. But now you are free to resume the peaceful lives of which you must have thought so often in your captivity and we rejoice with you in your freedom. The next paragraph is important. I hope that the Government listens to it very carefully. It states: You will find Australia is mindful of and grateful for the sacrifices you have made on her behalf and I trust that you will find great happiness and full compensation for the difficult times you have endured. Good luck and God speed to all of you. I think everybody should remember that and understand that today those people are a lot older. They are subject to all the worries that I have mentioned as affecting all elderly people. The Government should be aware of those problems. We could make this a very strong political issue but most of us have not because we do not want to worry veterans. We do not want to spoil their happiness. The honourable member asked me whether I would read the poem which I wrote about the flag. Of course I will read the poem; I have it all ready. My good friend the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) is in the chamber. I can see that he wants me to hurry up. He seems to want to say a few words. He keeps looking at his watch. The poem reads: Australians all please make a vow To keep the flag that we have now It's been our emblem over the years It represents our joys and tears. Our heritage is strong and true Why should we change to please the few Who would turn from all it represents For the ego of would-be presidents. Let's never forget the men so brave Who sacrificed their lives to save Australia and its freedom. Lest we forget their reason for dying Let's keep their proud flag ever flying. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga)(9.08) —It is a great pleasure to speak after the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck). I assure him that I, too, love the State of Tasmania. It is a beautiful State and I look forward to visiting it as often as possible. While the honourable member for Franklin spoke for some considerable time about the aged population of Australia in the year 2001, I would like to concentrate a lot of what I will say tonight upon young people. Until this Hawke Government came to office, which was really a mere 30 months ago, it was a rare occasion indeed for a member on this side of the House to address the situation of young people in our society. It is to the long-standing discredit and, indeed, condemnation of that former Liberal-National Party Government that it failed miserably for so many years to be aware of the role of young people in Australian society and the rights of young people. Year after year we saw a progression of Liberal-National Party Ministers and their Government ignore youth unemployment, the public education sector, higher education, youth training, youth housing and the developing crisis of drug abuse and the health problems of young people. Now, after only 30 months, this Hawke Labor Government has done much more than was done in the years of the former conservative government. Conservatives are conservatives because they resist change. How telling and pathetic it is that even today they have failed to learn their lesson, and that today the same discredited politicians return to positions of potential influence in Australian government in the area of young people. However, with the current line-up on the Opposition front bench, I believe they are unlikely to regain any real political and governmental influence for many years to come. Still, that is what they put to the Australian people as the alternative. The new and finally ordained Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) was the same Treasurer who disastrously lurched through years of economic recession, which has so severely curtailed the chances of a large section of our new generation. His economic policies resulted in massive inflation and unemployment, especially youth unemployment. His new Deputy, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown), was once Minister responsible for employment, industrial relations and youth and he distinguished himself in this area by trying to close down the community youth support scheme. They had no policies for youth employment or unemployment then, except to call for wage cuts, as they do now, for the most helpless in our society. They have failed in the past 30 months in opposition to come up with one decent alternative or at least to recognise the value of this Government's contribution to the young people of Australia. This Government has now put together the most comprehensive and co-ordinated package of programs for young people that this country has ever seen. I feel sure that there are but a very few mealy-mouthed Australians who would not realise and acknowledge these advances, and indeed the crying need for them. This Hawke Labor Government, since taking office a mere 30 months ago, has acted-not ignored the situation but it has acted-to ensure that Australia's young generation will have a solid education, jobs, financial security and options available to them as their birthright. There are just over 2.6 million young Australians between the ages of 15 and 24. Just over two million of them are in employment, full time education, or in some combination of education, training and employment. Unfortunately, at June 1985 there were still 230,000 young people-15 per cent of the labour force-recorded as unemployed or seeking full time work. In other words, that group represented some 8.8 per cent of the total population of young Australians. This Labor Government, during its period of office, has developed 76,000 jobs for young people and over 430,000 jobs in the Australian work force overall. There is a long way to go, but by putting young Australians as Priority One this Government calls on all Australians to recognise that unless we are prepared now to invest our resources in our greatest resource-the skills and minds of our young people-we shall condemn the future of this nation to mediocrity and a declining standard of living. We cannot understand why so many young people take drugs, commit suicide, smash telephone boxes and involve themselves in other forms of anti-social behaviour. We fail to recognise that we alienate young people from this older, powerful section of society. International Youth Year is meant to make all people aware of the role and status of young people in our society. Unfortunately, International Youth Year has been poorly taken up in our community as a whole. The theme for International Youth Year, as only a few people will be aware, is participation, development and peace. Where has been the participation of young people in International Youth Year? Have we started to develop ways in which older and more powerful society invites young people to participate in making the decisions in our community? Have we as an older, adult society been aware of developing awareness, access and participation of young people, or have we left International Youth Year to the young people themselves, to go off and print T-shirts, paint murals, hold rock concerts or whatever? In the International Year of Disabled Persons and since people have become aware of the daily needs of disabled people. They have become aware that disabled people are not to be ridiculed, avoided or feared, are an important, very full and competent part of our society, and have the right to participate fully in that society. In these times society by and large has been able to recognise this. Physical or emotional disabilities were so often visible and tangible, and the methods of development of disabled people in a full society were obvious once we thought and began to care about them. Disabled people were invited, and continually are now being invited, into the mainstream of society. Their contribution to our society is becoming more recognised as valuable and as needed; and that is as it should be. Similarly, today our young people are disadvantaged or even disabled in our society. Many are in a worse position than others. Many do not see themselves as the future. They see themselves, quite rightly, not only as the future but as the present as well. We have a tendency to regard young people as the future generation while forgetting their real potential, idealism and vigour. We forget their value, needs, status and role in present society. This country cannot afford to neglect its young people. The damage we do to this group in society today will infect this country for another 50 years or more. The crushing unemployment generated during the Fraser years-the years of government in which the present Leader of the Opposition, his Deputy and so many others on the Opposition benches participated-continues to cost this country billions of dollars per annum in lost national production. That is a debt this country now owes and we must make every effort to ensure that the debt is eliminated. Thousands of people in their twenties and thirties are now basically unemployable. Their lives will be spent in abject poverty. They will have little opportunity now to seek for their children and for themselves a rosy future because of the unemployment of the 1970s and 1980s. But the Hawke Labor Government is concerned that this legacy be erased and that maturing generations of young people have the opportunity for a full education, training, work, financial security and health-matters that a few years ago we all took for granted. This Government, through Priority One: Young Australia has committed itself and this nation to a renewed deal for young people in training, education, income support and support services for young people. Let us for a few moments look at the subject of training. The Government in this Budget has introduced a new system of traineeships which by 1988-89 will rise to 75,000 per annum. Tremendous incentives exist for business to be involved in training young people. There are financial incentives and incentives to business production. In education-I am aware of the time constraints and will cut my remarks short-in 1985-86 the Government has agreed to fund a further increase in intakes over and above the levels already decided for between 1,750 and 2,250 higher education places. The total increase over the 1985-87 triennium will be around 7.6 per cent. In terms of school funding the same increase in expenditure is expected to occur. Overall, technical and further education-TAFE-will see great increases in capital works and numbers of people involved in training because of the traineeship system. In income support under the Priority One program, rationalised income support arrangements will be introduced to complement initiatives in employment, training and education to remove financial disincentives which are so often encountered by young people and their families, especially those on low incomes. This will enable them to participate further in education. On the subject of support services for young people, all young people, whether satisfactorily placed in education, training and employment or not, as well as the unemployed, require access to a range of support services which should operate to supplement and support the role of the family. The Government will be establishing a youth services development program and many other community-based programs, not to mention increases of up to 23 per cent in the funding of community youth special projects, and there will be increased support for the Commonwealth Employment Service. These are the sorts of things that are taking place for young people today. This Government is committed to its young people, to making young people Priority One. I commend the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), the Minister for Trade and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Youth Affairs (Mr Dawkins), the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) and, of course, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and their staff as well as my committee for the work they have done in putting this program into place. We have a very long way to go. Some 230,000 young people are still out of work and Australia's skill base is still dismally low compared with the rate at which the skill bases of many other countries are growing. If we do not learn what other countries have known and applied for decades we will be condemning ourselves, our economy and our children to greater mediocrity. I call on all Australians-young Australians, the middle aged, the elderly, people in business, people in unions, the community in general and the Press of Australia-to make young Australians Priority One. Mr N. A. BROWN(Menzies)(9.21) —The remarks of the honourable member for Jagajaga (Mr Staples) are as appropriate an introduction as anything to the remarks I wish to make to the House on the 1985-86 Budget. Like the honourable member I wish to say a few things about the issues of employment and unemployment and some related matters and, in particular, youth unemployment. If there were anything upon which there should be common ground on both sides of the House it must surely be the blight of youth unemployment. With respect, the honourable member for Jagajaga unfairly sought to give the impression that all of the problems of youth unemployment started during the lifetime of the previous Government and seemed to come to an end during the lifetime of the present Government. That is clearly an absurd proposition; it is one that is not based upon facts. There is not very much to be gained in this debate by blaming one side or the other but if we are to apportion responsibility there is, at least, one event which should deserve emphasis. I think it is widely understood these days by virtually everyone who takes an interest in the subject that over successive years-they span the period of the previous Government as well as the current Government-we have probably played a very cruel trick on young people in this community. Over recent years we-I mean we as parliamentarians, members of industrial tribunals, unions and others in the power structure to which the previous speaker referred-have played a cruel trick on young people. We have done that because we have told them collectively that their standard of living, welfare and particularly employment would be improved if we increased their wages. That was the message we gave them. We went into industrial tribunals and mounted cases as a result of which youth wages were increased very substantially over the years. Not only were youth wages increased but the proportion of adult wages which they received was increased. We have that fact and the current fact that there is still very substantial youth unemployment-over 20 per cent in fact. It behoves us to consider whether there is any connection between the two. It is often overlooked that this issue has already been examined by the Bureau of Labour Market Research. That body concluded that there was a relationship between the level of youth wages, the percentage of the adult wage which they receive and the proportion of young people who are unemployed. The Bureau maintained in its report that that conclusion is supported by evidence both within Australia and overseas. It is often overlooked when we are looking at the problem of youth unemployment that that research has been done and that conclusions have been reached. We would be very wise indeed to act on them. It is not simply a matter of academic research that should lead us to the conclusion that one of the reasons for youth unemployment-not the sole reason-is the level of youth wages, the difficulty that that imposes on employers in employing more young people and, as I have said, the proportion of the adult wage which a young person receives. It should be accepted that that link has been established by academic research. It should also be accepted from our experience and our contact with employers who continually come to members of parliament and say that they could do a lot to employ more young people if only wages were not as high as they are and if only they did not have to pay such a high proportion of the adult wage. It is not always understood that in some cases employers have to pay the entire adult wage when they are employing a young person because, in many cases particularly with State awards, there are no junior rates, that is, there is no young persons rate which is payable. This matter was the subject of debate the other night by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) whose public contribution to this debate was very significant. We achieved something in the course of that debate a few days ago because the Minister was asked about the fact that in a number of State awards, in particular, there was no junior rate and the result was that employers had to pay the adult rate if they were to employ a young person. He was asked whether that was crazy. He said yes in answer to the question: Is there a case for junior rates in all awards? So he agrees with the proposition that it is crazy to pay a young person the full adult rate. It is a crazy situation that in many awards there is no junior rate. It follows from that that one of the reasons why more young people are not employed is that there is no junior rate. Indeed many employers would be in a better position to employ more young people if there were a junior rate or if the wages payable to a young person were lower. The obvious question springs to mind: What is the Minister doing about it? What is the Government doing about it? The Minister gave a momentous and historic answer: At this stage, nothing. That is what the Minister is doing and, presumably, he speaks for the Government on this matter. We can safely assume, on the basis of that evidence and in the absence of anything to the contrary, that this is what the Government is doing about reducing youth wages and getting youth rates into awards where they do not exist. That is, the Government is doing nothing. If the honourable member for Jagajaga wants to apportion blame he should look closer to home for the most current inactivity. The most current inactivity is very clearly both contributing to and maintaining youth unemployment at its high level and is contrary to the overwhelming preponderance of public opinion in this country. I say that because we know from a recent gallup poll that about 75 per cent of people in Australia are of the view that there should be more flexibility in youth wages and that that may well contribute to reducing youth unemployment. There are no certainties about this but we have the academic research, the experience of our own contact with employers which is consistent with the academic research and the public opinion polls. The totality of that surely must lead us to the conclusion that at least one thing we can do is to make it easier for employers to employ more young people. We can make it easier for employers to employ more young people if the proportion of the adult wage which has to be paid to young people is lowered and if the level of youth wages is reduced. It is worth a try. The Government seems to have conceded this because it is proposing a trainee scheme. The basis of the scheme is that the young person will be paid a reduced wage. The assumption presumably is that it is uneconomical for the employer to pay the entire wage, so the Government has to create a scheme. The Government starts with the assumption that the employers will not employ young people at the going wage and, therefore, a scheme must be devised under which a proportion of the wage is paid. The argument seems to be resolved by that alone. We ask the Government to approach this matter with an open mind. There is nothing for the Government to crow about in the areas of youth employment or adult employment. It is true that there has been an increase in the number of people employed in this country in recent years. However, the rate of unemployment is now going up, albeit marginally. Its going up is a very good reason for the Government to look again at those economic policies that may well be conducive to increasing unemployment. The most recent set of employment figures shows that the increase in employment in the last month was lower than that in the previous month. That should also bring the Government to a halt and make it ask: Are present policies conducive to continued employment growth and to expanding the rate of employment growth? So the first point is that there is nothing to be cocky about. The second point that should be very clear to the Government is that this must surely be the worst possible time for a government to inject into our wage cost structure new wage costs and substantial wage increases which cannot but result in making it more difficult for our industries to compete overseas and for employers to employ our people. It is the worst possible time for the Government to have gone to the Australian Council of Trade Unions and to have bargained away completely the reasonable prospects of getting from the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission a discounting on the indexation increase for the present national wage case. The Government bargained that away and got nothing in return. The Government has given in to the claim for a 3.8 per cent increase. That is not conducive to keeping down our costs and to keeping the competitive edge which the devaluation of the dollar-the Treasurer (Mr Keating) told us-has given us. It is conducive to putting up our costs and making it harder to export and harder for employers to employ other people. It is the worst possible time to do that and for the Government to bargain away the next national wage case increase, as it has done. That will lead to an increase-estimates vary-of 2.5 per cent or 3 per cent in wage costs. It is the worst possible time for the Government to bargain away the productivity case coming up next year. The Government has a great deal of persuasive standing as a national government. It should have put that to good effect. It should have got something in return. If it wanted to bargain and take its agreement to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, it should have made sure that it got far more from the trade union movement. It should have done its best to get some contribution from the trade union movement to keeping our wage costs down to reasonable levels. What are those reasonable levels? Whatever they are, so far as current estimates are concerned, the Australian figures are higher than those in the countries with which we like to compare ourselves, as Mr Whitlam used to say. In the last two years, we find that there has been an increase of 15.5 per cent in our wage costs. The average is 7.5 per cent. The United States had an increase of 3.9 per cent, Japan 3.8 per cent, West Germany 2.9 per cent, France 6.8 per cent and the United Kingdom 8.2 per cent. Australia had a 7.5 per cent increase. On the figures, we are doing better than the United Kingdom but our figure is not a good sign. Mr Barry Jones —Proportionately we are not doing badly. Mr N. A. BROWN —The honourable member says that that is not too bad. Let us look at what will be injected into our wage cost structure. We will have a 3.8 per cent increase from this national wage case, 2.5 per cent next time and a 3 per cent productivity increase next year. Which country will have wage costs which are anywhere near comparable with that increase in this country? Mr Barry Jones —Sweden, for one. Mr N. A. BROWN —Are there any more? Mr Barry Jones —Quite a number of the European countries. Mr N. A. BROWN —The Minister for Science tells us that there are quite a number. I look forward to hearing what they are. I make the proposition that no country with which we compete will have an increase in wage costs of those dimensions. Mr Barry Jones —Japan. Mr N. A. BROWN —Japan had an increase of 3.8 per cent in the last 12 months. I cannot believe that there will be a substantial increase of those dimensions over the next 12 months. If there is, so be it. But this is the worst possible time to inject into our wage cost structure increases of this sort which can have no result other than to make it harder for us to export and which will increase our wage costs to a level which will make it very difficult to expand employment. Those are some of the things that should be said. I trust that the Government will not continue to crow about its great success in the economy, in employment or whatever other indicator. The Government should be giving attention to interest rates. We have the highest real interest rates for 50 years. We have a public sector borrowing requirement that is 50 per cent greater than that in the United States. Inflation is getting up to around 8 per cent again. It shows all the signs of continuing to increase, with all the consequences that will follow in its wake. The present tax structure will put three-quarters of a million pay as you earn taxpayers into higher tax brackets, subject to what changes, if any, find their way through the mangled machinations of the Caucus and the Cabinet room in the present taxation exercise. One would hope that these sorts of matters would bring the Government back to earth when it examines its economic performance. We have a massive deficit, virtually an investment desert and so much industry controlled and regulated that there is almost no incentive for people to start new industries and expand the industries that they are in. We look forward to the Government at least considering a more liberalised approach so far as business, industry and commerce are concerned in the hope that we can solve some of these problems. It is most important that we solve some of the problems of unemployment which still remain very serious and substantial. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(9.49) —While listening to the contribution of the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown) I was wondering in which country we live. He talked about economic management by this Government vis-a-vis that of the Opposition when it was in power. I think that the positions are like chalk and cheese. Recently, this sort of nonsense that has emanated from those opposite clearly indicates that their criticisms are bereft of philosophical cohesion. That is a symptom of the endemic polarisation within their Party. The reality of the Hawke Government's achievements is that to date we have been outstandingly successful economic managers. It is important for members of the Australian public to recognise the alternatives available to them, as electors, in determining the direction and policies that they want to shape their country. I believe that the choice is simple. On the one hand we have the purveyors of the new Right, the dries who advocate extensive privatisation and deregulation of the labour market. In essence, it is the accretion of wealth by the few at the expense of the many under the banner of free enterprise. On the other hand, the electors of Australia can opt for the growth policies which this Government has delivered over the past two years and which it will continue to deliver. This Government has acheived that growth without having to surrender its very real concern for social justice within the Australian community. It is not only those honourable members on this side of the chamber who believe that this Government has done an incredible job over the last couple of years in turning around an economy which was going backwards and going downhill. One only has to remember the unemployment levels that the Government inherited, the deficit it inherited that was mentioned earlier tonight and so on to realise the problems that were besetting the economy before the Labor Party came to power. One only has to see what this Government has achieved. I for one am sick and tired of hearing honourable members on the other side, and media reports picking up on this as well, saying that things are going well now, that the drought broke but that is all going to change, that the figures in the Budget are rubbery but that will change, and so it goes on. The purveyors of doom and gloom are saying all the time that the economy is going to go backwards because of the policies of this Government. Let me say that that is humbug and nonsense. For 2 1/2 years we have been hearing this sort of nonsense and, of course, we now know that it is not true. Australia's economy has attracted a great deal of attention not only here but also overseas. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has recently referred to a number of studies which clearly indicate that the policies of the Hawke Government are working and that the lessons from Australia should be copied by overseas countries. Indeed, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is predicting a 4 per cent growth in Australia both this year and next. Even that conservative but nevertheless internationally respected British weekly, the Economist, conceded the impressive record of the Hawke Labor Government's economic performance in an article published on 17 August this year. Other articles have been published which also clearly demonstrate the great performance of this Government. In specific comments on this Budget, which after all is what we are here to debate, it is interesting to pick up on some of the commentaries that were made on this Budget when it was brought down. For example, I refer honourable members to the Age, which on 21 August made this comment on the Budget: Mr Keating-and Cabinet-deserve great credit for last night's documents. All thing considered-especially the political realities so often ignored by economic purists-and setting aside the inevitable quibbles, Mr Keating has brought down just about the best Budget he could have. I think that comment in the Age is fair comment. On that same day the Age further said: Last night's was not an exciting Budget, but it made a lot more sense than most that were brought down over the past 15 years. That is an article in a local paper. I have already referred to what has happened overseas. It is interesting to compare the achievements of the Government with comments from honourable members on the other side. A great deal of criticism has also been levelled at the accord and the important part it plays in ensuring that the Budget is successful and critical in maintaining Australia's economic growth. I quote an article in the Australian on 6 September by Mr Paul Kelly, who I think is an admirable commentator who has a fair and unbiased mind. He is very perceptive in his comments. Writing about the accord, he said: Based upon the heroic economic assumptions of lower inflation down to 5 to 6 per cent, high growth and maintenance of the highest company profits for 15 years, the doomsayers claim that the Government is simply too optimistic; but the Government correctly replies that the doomsayers have now been wrong for two and a half years. How long does the Government have to keep on turning around the unemployment figures, putting the inflation down and achieving the lowest level of industrial disputes for 17 years before honourable members on the other side get it grough their thick skulls that the Government has done something? While referring to the accord, I refer to a comment in that well known newspaper from my area-the Illawarra Mercury-which is a very good fair and unbiased newspaper. That newspaper had this to say about the accord: It is to Mr Keating's credit that he was able to preserve the accord, retain ACTU respect and yet keep the Government's economic strategy on line. More importantly, the article went on to say: The Federal Treasurer is emerging as one of the most brilliant and astute political operators since Federation. I do not think I could have said it any better. When one picks up on some of the commentary that has been passed by honourable members opposite, it is particularly interesting to compare our policies with theirs. In particular, I refer to the whole question of industrial relations and wage fixing. The Opposition's new shadow spokesman on Treasury matters, in an interview that the Prime Minister referred to at length recently in the House, revealed that he thinks that centralised wage fixing not only does not work but also cannot work. Yet, when pressed on monetary policy, he was unable to take that on. It is interesting to focus on the question of wage fixation, how the industrial relations system works and so on. Given that we have the lowest level of industrial disputes in 17 years, I think there undoubtedly exists a conspiracy amongst those opposite in the Liberal Party to fix jobs for the boys and girls in industrial relations. I will elaborate on that. During the Fraser years, industrial confrontations became so much a part of life that universities all over Australia began training specialists to cope with the huge rise in cases before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Industrial relations departments began to be created in universities-not a bad feat when one considers how much money the Fraser Government gave to education in those days-in order to meet the need for specially trained graduates, as it became increasingly apparent that conventional management approaches were unable to contain the burgeoning numbers of disputes. Industrial relations studies grew dramatically at a time when it was thought that a high level of industrial disputes was then a necessary and permanent dynamic of the work force. I believe that there are those opposite who think that those days should be returned to, that we should have confrontation all the time. Under the Hawke Government, with the accord and the establishment of bodies such as the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, the lot of the worker has improved dramatically. This has helped to reduce the incidence of problems and confrontations in the work place. Here is this conspiracy. When industrial relations officers get together these days, they complain that they get down to the Commission only twice a week, whereas it was twice a day in the good old days of the Fraser Government. Worse still, with the extra time on their hands, some of them are actually having to turn their attention to employee welfare-is that not terrible?-rather than be thrown into the front line of battle when the issue has already got out of hand. This, is turn, helps offset the development of unattended grievances, meaning fewer days down at the Commission. Therefore, they are able to claim fewer expenses. I put it to the House that the labour market deregulation program of the Liberals is designed to alleviate the boredom of this particular professional group and to contribute to their well-being. Again, it is a confrontationist policy. It says: `These people who have been hanging around and supporting Liberal policy all this time and who are now out of work-let us fix them up. Let us have a good old confrontation and drag it out'. As the Prime Minister pointed out the other day in the House, honourable members opposite are casting their glasses to find an industrial dispute. They are saying: `Let us go for that and drum up a bit more business'. There really is only one thing more boring than being an industrial officer at the present time, and that is being unemployed. In my electorate of Macarthur, which covers a considerable section of the Illawarra, unemployment is presently running at 14 per cent-almost twice the national average. However, this Budget promises to do something substantial for the Illawarra, a region which has never fully recovered from the industrial retrenchments of the recession during the Fraser years. In the current climate of economic growth in Australia under the careful management of this Government, prospects for business growth in the retail area, and particularly in the tourism and hospitality industries, are real. It is in those same areas that the Government proposes to create traineeship opportunities for young people-an extremely appropriate decision for those regions with chronic employment problems such as the Illawarra. This evening some of my colleagues spoke at length about the traineeship program, the Priority One: Young Australia program, et cetera. I believe it is one of the chief contributing factors which will not only see the re-election of this Government in 1988, or whenever the election comes, but also ensure that this Government is here for a very long time. This Government has proven in three successive Budgets that it is the appropriate economic manager for this country. The Government has turned around the problems that beset Australia. This country has grown, those areas that have been affected by blight and economic depression have started to pick up and the Illawarra is recovering-it has turned. Through the policies of this Government, that process will continue. I commend the Budget to the House. I commend the Treasurer for his foresight and I commend the Prime Minister for the support given to the people of Australia to ensure that their economic well-being is continued. Mr CONQUEST(Hinkler)(10.00) —There is an urgent need for a revival of entrepreneurial values and the rewarding and encouraging of genuine productivity, because genuine productivity is the basis of real economic growth. However, the prospects for such an outcome from this Budget are dependent on forecasts as recorded in the Budget's statements, which are `no more than approximate outcomes centred on a range of plausible possibilities conditional on a number of assumptions'. The growth projection for the economy rely heavily on assumptions about the future of the accord, the likely effects of devaluation, the Government's monetary policy and future investment by the private sector. As a consequence, it is no wonder that the Treasury refers to `approximate outcomes' and `plausible possibilities conditional upon assumptions'. As I said before, genuine productivity is the basis of real economic growth. During the Budget Speech, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) did not mention anything about an Australian Council of Trade Unions' productivity claim of 4 per cent, but following discussion between the Government and the ACTU after the Budget presentation we have now been told that the claim is but 3 per cent. Let us examine the actuality and the concept of productivity. The ACTU has supposedly conducted a detailed assessment of the economy, an economy which has seen the Australian dollar's value reduced by 20 per cent; which has a $10 billion deficit on the current account balance; which is looking at an intensification of inflationary pressures; which has a burgeoning foreign debt and a government whose spending continues to increase; which has a definite slowing in growth; and which has a substantial slowing of labour market improvement. This is the economy that the ACTU has closely examined. What does it now say? It says that wage earners have not benefited from the recovery as much as they should have, so it will demand the continuation of full indexation and press on with the productivity claim. Where is the substance for this productivity claim? There is, in fact, none. In the period from March 1983 to March 1985 there has been an increase in average weekly earnings of 15.1 per cent while prices have risen by 13.2 per cent, giving a net increase in real wages of 1.7 per cent. The growth that occurred in that period eventuated because of an increase in total hours worked of some 11.1 per cent. That saw productivity per hour worked decrease from $12 to $11.95 which, in percentage terms, is a reduction in productivity of 0.4 per cent. Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table which I have referred to you, and which clearly shows the methodology in arriving at these figures. Leave granted. The table read as follows- REAL WAGES AND PRODUCTIVITY MARCH 1983 TO MARCH 1985 Quarter Average Weekly Earnings Persons Consumer Price Index (Adjusted for the effect of Medicare) Real Wages Employment Seasonally Adjusted Gross Domestic Product in Constant Prices Seasonally Adjusted Hours Worked Productivity Per Hour Worked ($)($) (000s) ($m) (m) ($) March 1983... 295.40 121.7 242.70 6,287.6 30,776 2,560.6 12.00 March 1985... 340.10 137.8 246.80 6,592.9 33,988 2,844.4 11.95 Percentage Change... 15.1 13.2 1.7 4.9 10.4 11.1 -0.4 Mr CONQUEST —I thank the House. As to the conceptual aspect of productivity, I would like to express the thoughts of many small business operators, of which I am one, as to what constitutes productivity. In a work place which over the last 40 years has seen significant reductions in hours actually worked in a year by individual employees, the introduction of four weeks leave, a 17 1/2 per cent leave loading, generous sick leave and long service leave entitlements and other benefits, it is impossible to accept the argument that a worker can produce more through his own initiative. My own experience reveals that I was required to purchase high technology machinery-bigger, better, faster machines-so that I could increase output to maintain profitability. My employees, who are excellent tradespersons and workers, did not themselves work harder or faster but, because of the advantages derived from these new machines, the value added component of my output increased sufficiently to arrive at a productivity dollar per hour to cover the increasing costs. In plain language, small business people spend thousands of dollars on equipment whilst the employee's burden is lessened through reduced working hours and less skill demands because of technology. Now, when they say `Our productivity is up', the ACTU goes in to bat at the national wage case seeking a wage hike based on productivity. Who is kidding who? The impact of the costs of devaluation in the CPI was to be countered by the Government's arguing before the Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission that the price effects of depreciation should be taken into account, or so said the Treasurer on 20 August during his Budget Speech. However, events since Budget night have seen the ACTU's rejection of any discounting manifested in the accord mark 2. We are now expected to believe that the Government did not back down to the union movement. This Government is bereft of any anchorman and the slightest tug of strength from the ACTU inevitably leads to a collapse in the Government team. The Government's predeliction is to cite the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development as being supportive of its action. However, the warnings issued by by that body, that the benefits of the depreciation of the dollar will be lost unless the issues of both indexation and the productivity hearing are squarely faced, seem to have been ignored by this Government. The Treasurer indicated that the strategy of the Government will underpin a third year of economic growth and that the expected increase in the non-farm sector of the economy is at about the same rate-5 per cent-as last year. Earlier indications that there was a flattening out of growth in the June quarter appear to have been borne out and have been confirmed by the forecasts of the National Institute for Economic and Industry Research. It must also be remembered that this forecast was made on the assumption that discounting for the effects of devaluation would occur. The fact that the Institute predicted a decline in growth from 4.8 per cent to 2.5 per cent in gross non-farm product, with discounting assumed, is cause for concern in itself; but when the added effects of not discounting are considered, it is apparent that the prediction would have been for an even lower figure, and this is the greater cause for worry. The consumer price index merely measures the cost of purchasing a given fixed weight basket of goods and services. It cannot reflect short term changes in consumers' tastes and habits or shifts in consumption because of change in relative prices. Consumer substitution practices are never reflected in the CPI, so it is clear that it does not measure the cost of living. It must also be noted that, in the wage discounting agreement between the Government and the ACTU, it was stated that the Government would seek price restraint. In other words, businesses are urged to contain price rises while the ACTU tells the Government that it wants nothing less than full indexation. All the posturing in the world and denials to the contrary will not convince the electorate at large that this Government is not subservient to the ACTU and responds to its dictates, as it dictates. What more can we expect when we know the background of some of our present Government leaders? In 1970, our present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), our so-called economic guru, decreed that 1971 would be the year of the 35-hour week. In 1974, he criticised the then Labor Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, for opposing a 27 per cent pay increase for some airline pilots. In August 1974, he expressed the ACTU's policy on wages with the following words: We know inflation is at 16 per cent and we believe it's quite likely to reach 20 per cent in the next two quarters. But we will not indulge in a trade-off in wages for some conjectural reduction in wages. The Opposition's plans to investigate the deregulation of the labour market have been influenced by many factors, not the least of which are high youth unemployment figures and high youth wage rates. This stance has been much criticised by the Government. I support the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown) in his argument in this debate this evening. The Budget strategy for young people-Priority One-seems to me to be an admission that the Government's own labour policies and attitudes towards youth employment have been remiss and that what we as an Opposition have been saying is correct. It now remains for the Government to pursue the logic of the wage subsidy component of the scheme to its conclusion and to support the deregulation of youth wages in certain circumstances, thus widening the employment and training opportunities for all young people and not just those who receive traineeships. The general compression in junior-adult relativities began in September 1972. The key factor was a consent agreement to vary the Federal metal industry awards. It was initiated by an ACTU campaign `to increase progressively the junior-adult percentages applicable to apprentice and non-apprentice juniors'. Changes in that award were followed by changes in a number of other Federal and State awards over a two-year period. The consequence of the position advocated by the ACTU was that it became increasingly difficult for young unskilled workers to obtain employment and thus acquire skills. The Bureau of Labour Market Research, which is located in the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, had this to report in March 1983: Virtually all studies confirm that increases in youth wages, relative to those other groups, decrease employment of youth. Guess who was the President of the ACTU and the industrial advocate when the skids were put under the kids in 1972? Mr Slipper —Tell us. Mr CONQUEST —I will tell the honourable member who it was. It was the current Prime Minister and the current Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis). I refer now to a concern which I have noticed is held by many of my constituents. I refer in particular to the concern of the small businessman and primary producer in regard to the imposition of the capital gains tax, which appears imminent. Arrangements under sections 25AA and 26AAA of the Income Tax Assessment Act are already capable of recouping taxation revenue from short term and speculative gains. I do not think it is an unfair expectation that those small businessmen should look for some compensation for the long hours, the absence of holidays and the continual worry of recouping from capital when the business is eventually sold. Similarly a farmer looks to hand his business on to his children who have shared the long days and hard work for minimum remuneration in the expectation of that eventuating. We regard as punitive any thought of a capital gains tax. I refer to the positive aspects of import substitution made possible by the devaluation of the Australian dollar. I refer also to the probable harm that will be done by a non-discounted fully indexed national wage case decision. The competitive edge in our export markets to which the Treasurer alluded in the Budget Speech depends on ensuring that the lower value of the Australian dollar is translated into lower prices for Australian goods sold overseas. The benefits which can be brought to the economy easily outweigh the disadvantage of the relatively small increase in prices of imported goods as a consequence of that devaluation. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am aware that there is some time limitation on speeches this evening so I will defer to another speaker. Mr DUNCAN(Makin)(10.12) —I am not sure whether I should thank anybody for the opportunity for speaking for four minutes tonight in this debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1). However, I will deal in the few minutes available to me with the discredited economic policies of the new Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). Mr Slipper —He is the best Leader of the Opposition that this country has had. Mr DUNCAN —We will deal with that in a moment. Of course, the honourable member for Bennelong was Treasurer under the Fraser Government. What is particularly remarkable-it is noteworthy only for this reason-is that the Opposition obviously has not learned even one lesson from its quite disastrous record when it occupied the treasury bench. The Opposition will not admit that it left a legacy of three million people living under the poverty line, record unemployment, high interest rates and an economic mess. We are still feeling the effects of that and still having to undertake corrections. The Opposition remarkably now wants to replace the successful economic policies of this Government and return to the totally discredited policies of the Fraser years. More than that, the Opposition now says it wants to implement a program of privatisation. The Opposition, directionless-we cannot keep tabs on its leaders or the factions which control the Liberal and National parties these days-is seeking to become a clone of the Thatcher Government. That is a government of misery, of pessimism and of economic failure. In simple terms, the Fraser policies-they are the policies of this Opposition-are unsportsmanlike, discriminatory, one-sided, partisan and prejudiced against the poor and the working people of this country. This Opposition is anti-worker, anti-union and anti-Australian. Its rhetorical commitment to privatisation is an adequate example of this, although there are many others of course. Just what does privatisation mean for ordinary Australian people? At the bottom line it means the sale of public enterprises long held trust by the Government for the benefit of all Australians to big business. Big business will be the only group in the community with enough power and resources to afford to buy these massive national undertakings. It means that the control of enterprises will pass into the hands of those who already control the wealth of this nation. It will means that control of our transport industries, our public utilities, our energy supplies and our communications networks will be held outside of Australia. Inevitably, privatisation will lead to more unemployment. The policies of the Opposition already have been shown to cause record unemployment. Privatisation will further that problem. For the Opposition the reduction of real wage levels, increased profits and unemployment are principal economic tools although, if I might say so, certainly not principled tools. Debate interrupted. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(10.15) —During the debate on the Budget, which is now drawing to a close, an important feature of the Budget Papers which has gone unremarked is the inflationary financing of the Hawke Government's budgetary deficit in the year to June last. The Budget deficit for the year was $6.7 billion-second only in magnitude to the previous year's deficit of all but $8 billion. What has not been openly recognised is that the Hawke Government relied on the Reserve Bank of Australia to finance directly and indirectly fully half of the $6.7 billion deficit in the year to June last. That is inflationary financing on a large scale by any standards. Indeed, such a resort by the Hawke Government to central bank financing is tantamount to printing money and is reminiscent of the Whitlam era or perhaps, rather of Dr Jim Cairns. During the first part of the 1984-85 financial year the Government was out to keep the lid on interest rates during the election campaign. In that context there was then the necessity to finance its own profligate spending-the very large spending increases provided for in the 1984 Budget. Just about everything such as spending on sport and recreation which was up 60 per cent, spending on the community employment program which was up 44 per cent, spending on the Australian Bicentennial Authority which was up 352 per cent, and so on. At the same time there was strong growth in private sector activity and its demands for finance. In addition, there were the complications arising from the devaluation. In the circumstances domestic capital markets could not possibly absorb the Government demands made upon it. In responding to a question I asked touching on this matter last Friday, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) referred to the Government's very proper bond selling program in financing the deficit in the 1983-84 financial year. However, he had less to say about 1984-85. I seek leave to incorporate a table in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Table A Changes in Holdings of Domestically-issued Commonwealth Securities and Other Financing, 1975-76 to 1984-85 ($m) 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 DOMESTIC FINANCING (NET)... 3434 2360 1697 2100 1831 Bank... 1828 1277 242 1229 946 Reserve Bank (a)... 1759 1527 256 351 655 Trading Banks (b)... 149 -109 19 464 256 Savings Banks... -80 -141 -33 414 35 Non-Bank... 1606 1083 1455 871 885 Authorised Money Market Dealers... 68 111 289 99 25 Life Offices... 192 172 221 155 196 Other Non-Bank (c)... 1346 800 945 617 664 OVERSEAS BORROWINGS (NET)... 132 357 1612 1349 187 Gross Raisings... 279 459 1760 1557 471 US Dollar... 171 459 951 . . . . Pound Sterling... . . . . . . . . . . Deutschemark... 34 . . 486 129 207 Swiss Franc... 44 . . 23 587 . . Yen... . . . . 183 589 264 Guilder... 30 . . 117 252 . . Repayments... 146 101 148 208 284 Less: Discount on Treasury Bonds... . . . . . . . . (-)2 TOTAL FINANCING TRANSACTIONS... 3566 2717 3309 3449 2016 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 DOMESTIC FINANCING (NET)... 1230 275 4049 7895 6122 Bank... 804 519 -171 714 4277 Reserve Bank (a)... -680 264 -1621 -936 3377 Trading Banks j(a)... 785 377 500 561 1149 Savings Banks... 699 -122 950 1089 -249 Non-Bank... 426 -244 4220 7181 1846 Authorised Money Market Dealers... 22 -468 539 -46 -452 Life Offices... 214 390 459 1015 -133 Other Non-Bank (c)... 190 -166 3222 6212 2431 OVERSEAS BORROWINGS (NET)... -98 368 586 362 906 Gross Raising... 173 919 1153(d) ll78(d) l8l5(d) US Dollar... . . . , 418 996 440 Pound Sterling... . . . . 176 148 . . Deutschemark... 95 194 170 . . 236 Swiss Franc... . . 590 . . 30 259 Yen... 78 135 233 . . 733 Guilder... . . . . 154 . . 139 Repayments... 271 552 568 816 909 Less: Discount on Treasury Bonds... (-)27 (-)67 (-)168 (-)297 (-)282 TOTAL FINANCING TRANSACTIONS... 1105 576 4467 7960 6746 (a) Includes increases in the reserve Bank's holdings of Treasury Notes, Bonds and Bills plus decreases in the Commonwealth's cash balances at the Reserve Bank. (b) Includes Development banks. (c) Includes Income Equalisation Deposits, State domestic raisings and other financing transactions, not elsewhere identified. (d) Gross raisings include, by accounting convention, payments from the International Sugar Organisation. Table B Changes in Holdings of Domestically-issued Commonwealth Government Securities and other Domestic Financing, Classified by Instrument ($m-face value) 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 Treasury Bonds... 2652 1585 704 593 155 ASBs and Special Bonds... 1132 376 418 283 185 Treasury Notes... -1620 -86 -7 1047 205 Treasury Bills... 850 450 200 500 500 Cash Balances with Reserve Bank (a)... 296 28 103 -454 635 Other Financing (b)... 124 7 279 131 151 DOMESTIC FINANCING (NET)... 3434 2360 1697 2100 1831 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 Treasury Bonds... 594 1236 3472 7794 6093 ASBs and Special Bonds... -320 -721 2391 1943 -676 Treasury Notes... 1912 153 -44 -1563 822 Treasury Bills... -600 -500 -1400 . . . . Cash Balances with Reserve Bank (a)... -242 151 -353 -274 -322 Other Financing (b)... -114 -44 -17 -5 205 DOMESTIC FINANCING (NET)... 1 230 275 4 049 7 895 6 122 (a) Negative sign denotes increases in cash balances. (b) Includes Income Equalisation Deposits, State domestic raisings and other financing transactions, not elsewhere identified. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —I thank the House. What is clear from Budget Paper No. 1 at page 77, is that initial subscriptions to the gross issue of government bonds of $7.6 billion during the year were made on the normal scale by the trading banks and, more importantly, by the non-bank sector. But subsequently a large swag of their holdings were `refinanced', bought by the Reserve Bank with the effect of pumping money-new cash-into the system on a large scale. In the outcome the cash base growth was fully 50 per cent up on 1983-84. The increase in money supply as measured by M3 at $13.4 billion was nearly twice the growth of the previous year. Whatever the complications of interpretation arising from deregulation in the financial system, that hardly qualifies as a `firm monetary policy'-the Treasurer averred the other day that the Government had run such a policy `at all stages'-and bodes inflation trouble down the track, albeit that policy is currently tight. I revert to the financing of the deficit. The outcome-see the table at page 385 of Budget Statement No. 6, herewith-shows that the crucial non-bank contribution, which represents genuine domestic savings, was very low. With the deficit at $6.7 billion it was only a net $1.8 billion. In contrast, in the previous year, 1983-84, the non-bank sector contributed fully $7.2 billion towards the deficit of $7.9 billion. In that year also the Reserve Bank actually decreased its holdings on government securities. However, as I have said in this past year the central bank has directly and indirectly contributed some $3.4 billion-fully half of the deficit funding requirement. As I said, there was a significant exercise in printing money and inflationary financing. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(10.19) —In the Parliament there are often acrimonious and bitter debate and contributions by honourable members that take a partisan course. My contribution to the Parliament tonight seeks to bring the Parliament and its members together on the cause of human rights. I seek to address the House on the very significant parliamentary organisation, the Parliamentary Group of Amnesty International. The Parliamentary Group of Amnesty International is part of the world wide movement of Amnesty International. That international human rights movement is independent of any government, political faction, ideology, economic interest or religious creed. It works for the release of men and women imprisoned anywhere in the world because of their beliefs, colour, ethnic origin or religion, provided that they have neither used nor advocated violence. They are termed prisoners of conscience. Amnesty International and the parliamentary group oppose torture and capital punishment in all cases and without reservation. When I tell the House what the work of the group has been in recent times, honourable members will truly see that the causes that Amnesty takes up in the parliamentary group transgress any ideology and indeed it is one of the very few forums in the Parliament where the members of both Houses can join together with common commitment to the cause of human rights. In the wider group, Amnesty International seeks observance throughout the world of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. Amnesty has 2,600 groups and national sections in 40 countries. Each group works for three prisoners of conscience in countries other than its own. The three countries are balanced geographically and politically to ensure impartiality. Information about prisoners and human rights violations emanates from Amnesty International's Research Department in London. Amnesty has consultative status with the United Nations and the Council of Europe, has co-operative relations with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organisation of American States, is recognised by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, and has an observer status with the Organisation of African Unity. Amnesty International is financed by the subscriptions and donations of its world wide membership. To safeguard the independence of the organisation, all contributions are strictly controlled by guidelines laid down by the International Council, and income and expenditure are made public in an annual financial report. Those of us who are members and supporters have great reason to be proud of the work of the parliamentary group that operates in this Parliament as the organ of Amnesty International. The group was formed in 1973. Membership is open to any person, not only the elected members, who works in the precincts of the Parliament. The activities of the group include organising deputations to various embassies to highlight human rights violations, promoting parliamentary debates on Amnesty issues, promoting legislation for international initiatives and support of Amnesty and, finally keeping Amnesty informed of matters of concern that have come to the attention of members. At the last count 28 senators and 47 members of the House of Representatives were members of the group. Quite vital to the work of the Amnesty group is the fact that it is not the province, not the plaything, of any one political party or any one group in the Parliament. There is common ground, common concern, about human rights violations. It is for that reason that I take great pride in informing the Parliament that we hope to have as a guest speaker to a parliamentary dinner which has been organised by the Parliamentary Group of Amnesty International, and to speak on the very grave concern that we all have in relation to South Africa, someone who needs no introduction in this Parliament, the Rt Hon. Malcolm Fraser. Mr COBB(Parkes)(10.25) —One of the first tasks a coalition government must do after it wins the next Federal election is to abolish the Human Rights Commission. I say this because I believe it has become another Government bureaucracy that has strayed far from what it was originally set up to do. It has come to represent what the overwhelming majority of Australians do not want, and indeed, it seems to be doing everything it can to break down our traditional way of life. Let me elaborate by referring to some of the reported activities of the Human Rights Commission in just the four months from February to May 1985. It has advocated that we should allow homosexual immigration on the grounds of family reunion and it has come down strongly against anyone who is critical of the homosexual community. The last thing most people want are more homosexuals and more cases of acquired immune deficiency syndrome coming into this country. The Human Rights Commission has attacked the Queensland Government over its new industrial legislation regarding the electricity workers, despite having a normal rule of not inquiring into State legislation. The Chairman, Dame Roma Mitchell, was in agreement with the socialist Left on this when she said she deplored sections of the Act, which amounted to virtual slave labour. The Human Rights Commission has called for a repeal of the Act, saying it breached an International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights drawn up by overseas socialist countries which have never remotely honoured any of these agreements anyhow; for example, Russia. The Human Rights Commission wants no statements made in Australia that it considers to be racially defamatory; Not only are Irish jokes out, but more seriously, Professor Geoffrey Blainey would have been punished for his recent comments on Asian immigration. It criticises Queensland because it has not implemented the International Labour Organisation Convention 111 on discrimination in employment and occupation. It has recommended that any illegal immigrant couple who can have a child in Australia be entitled to permanent residence in Australia. This is an invitation to circumvent the law by fecundity. Even Ronald Biggs managed to evade extradition from Brazil by fathering a child there. The Commission has urged the Federal Parliament to override the Queensland parliamentary laws relating to Aborigines on State reserves, on such grounds that it may well want to have arrangements for self-government which differ from those of the community generally. It has supported the right of Women Against Rape to march on Anzac Day, and said that to prevent them would have `serious implications for civil liberty'. It wants boys and girls under 12 years of age to compete against each other equally in sporting events, and has been reluctant to revise this decision. The Executive Director of the Australian Primary Schools Sports Association has had to apply to the Human Rights Commission to be alllowed to run its national championships divided into boys and girls competitions. The Commission supported Gareth Evans's attempts to initiate a Bill of Rights for Australia so that we can `fulfil our obligations' under international treaties on human rights. If passed, the Human Rights Commission would acquire alarming powers to investigate any action which it believes could have contravened the Bill of Rights, and could compel anyone to appear before its inquiries and produce any evidence or documents. It could become Australia's `Star Chamber'. This could cause more breaches of human rights than it could prevent. The Human Rights Commission would become the Human Wrongs Commission. The Commission has advertised in Queensland newspapers offering bribes to school teachers of $500 and schools of $1,000 if they will teach the contents of the Human Rights Commission teaching kit to the school children. The kit preaches the usual trendy nonsense, such as Australia is a privileged and rich country that denies many people such as Aborigines of their rights. It also has booklets on sexism and racism. Dr Moen, a lecturer in law at Sydney University said that a study he had done on affirmative action and equal employment opportunity policies had been suppressed by the Human Rights Commission because it was critical of its policies in Australia. He had argued, for example, that employment schemes should hire their workers on merit and not stipulate that so many women, so many Aborigines, and so on, should be hired for each job. The Human Rights Commission refused to investigate a case involving a white journalist, Erwin Chlanda, who alleged on a number of occasions to the Commission that he had been discriminated against by Aborigines at Alice Springs. It has also opposed the presence of vigilance committees to supplement the police where the police forces were not effective in their law enforcement role. It has criticised the Wollongong University's human rights record, causing its Vice-Chancellor, Professor Ken McKinnan, to claim the Human Rights Commission did not know what it was talking about, and that it had never been in touch with the University and had set itself up as judge and jury on the university without making any attempt to obtain the point of view of the university. The Commission caused the visiting Professor of Jurisprudence at Sydney University, Professor Lauchlan Chipman, to claim that the Human Rights Commission was guilty of the most serious violations of human rights because of its abandonment of traditional concepts of justice. The list could go on and on. The Human Rights Commission has clealy assumed powers way beyond its role. It has trumpeted every trendy cause imaginable from Aborigines, homosexuals, Women Against Rape, affirmative action, Joh-bashing in Queensland and debasing our traditional law. You name it. The Human Rights Commission has come to epitomise everything that is wrong with Australia today. It should be abolished. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PUNCH(Barton)(10.30) —As privatisation is advocated by the Opposition as a basic plank in an alternative economic management platform, its horrendous shortcomings at a macroeconomic level must be shown up for what they are. Privatisation will increase unemployment, lower consumption and hence gross domestic product, increase recurrent public expenditure and place heavy upward pressures on interest rates. Those honourable members opposite see privatisation purely in terms of efficiency. They argue that by divesting public assets, turning them to private enterprise, those authorities will automatically become more efficient. In that judgment they ignore the track record of British privatisation. I have dealt with that on a previous occasion. However the track record of British privatisation also shows the horrendous cost in terms of unemployment. It shows the addition to the horrendous levels of unemployment that privatisation makes in its own right. With unemployment increases, of course, comes an additional downturn in total consumption. As was the case under the Fraser Government, a repeat of a downturn in total consumption can only have a detrimental effect on total production and, hence, gross domestic product. The longer term nature of that unemployment should be made obvious to every member of this House. Public enterprise bodies such as Trans Australia Airlines and Qantas Airways Ltd., Telecom Australia and Australia Post have work forces trained solely in those areas. Hence, unemployment for those people would mean long term unemployment as it would be hard for them to manufacture alternative skills overnight to enable them to seek alternative employment. But no greater example of the risk versus the record argument of privatisation-that is Liberal versus Labor-is needed to be evinced in this House than the effects that privatisation would have in the money markets. Selling off public enterprises on the stock market either initially or, as was the case of the almost immediate secondary transactions which occurred in the stock exchanges in Britain, would place horrendous demands on the Australian capital market with the immediate consequence of significant upward pressure in interest rates while increasing the volume of money. Significantly in Britain, the real and nominal interest rates are very high, and the volume of money has been increasing beyond target consistently. The effect of privatisation on total investment would be that some available capital would be used to purchase enterprises, inevitably at low share prices, causing a disruption in the efficient market allocation of resources. That would have taken place without the drag of privatisation. Investment in industries creating new jobs would be sidetracked, being effectively a disinvestment or, at the very least, a double investment in some industries. The free marketeers, ironically, would be arresting and artificially redirecting market investment, in stark contrast to the investment expectations on which the Budget that we discussed earlier this evening has been based. The figure needed to be redirected in the privatisation campaign would be some $9 billion to $10 billion based on 1983-84 estimates of capital and reserves providing a rough proxy for market capitalisation of 10 public enterprises on the Opposition's hit list. The enormous dislocative effect of this can be seen in the fact that the total investment in Australia in 1983-84 prices was $11.4 billion-only marginally more. The free marketeers on the Opposition benches should consider very seriously the new jobs, the new production and, hence, the economic growth that would be forgone by a process of privatisation. The alternative, of course, as advocated by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) would be to sell some of these corporations to overseas interests. This would be a disgrace. The selling of national assets would mean that the efforts of past generations to build up national assets for their grandchildren would go down the drain. Of course, if foreign investors buy the assets, privatisation would be associated with a capital inflow and consequent upward pressure on the value of the Australian dollar. Similarly, if domestic buyers finance their purchases overseas there would be capital inflow and revaluation pressures. If those opposite are really concerned about the operation of the free market, they should very seriously consider the macroeconomic effects of privatisation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(10.35) —Unfortunately the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch) has demonstrated an abysmal ignorance of the concept of extended private ownership of public resources. I think that that is something which is going to be debated at greater length during the next few months and years in this Parliament. That is a good thing too. I want to raise the point that the Budget debate we are currently involved in is really a misnomer because in fact part of that Budget has not yet been delivered. I refer to the fact that we have not at this stage had the opportunity to debate the taxation side-the revenue collecting side-of the Budget. That is because the Government has had to do a deal with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. I am not suggesting for a moment that the Government is doing anything exceptional in terms of parliamentary practice in debating with the ACTU a deal for an approach to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on the wage case. We may think that it is acting less as a representative of the Australian people and more as a special representative of a section of the community. But that is not the substantial point of interest to me. The substantial point is that this Parliament does not have its business in good shape because the Government had delayed the taxation section of the Budget pending the exclusive discussions that it has been having with the ACTU. That is thoroughly bad public business simply because it is thoroughly bad parliamentary business. This Parliament represents all Australians, but its executive has traipsed off to the ACTU and struck a tax deal published under a document entitled `Proposed agreement between the Government and the ACTU regarding implementation of the accord over the next two years'. We have an extraordinary situation in which this Government has located the ACTU as an executive in tandem with the elected executives of the nation. It is the kind of precedent that no successor government can be asked to follow. It is totally contrary to the Westminster principle of parliamentary government. We are facing a situation where the Australian economy, which is essentially a mixture of private and public sector enterprise-a free mixed economy-is being turned by this Government into a controlled economy. The parliamentary implications of the accord are quite dangerous to the authority of this Parliament. This has been well demonstrated over the past week. I therefore think that the time has come to warn the public of Australia that organisations external to parliament are dictating to this Parliament. The full Budget process has been suspended and the confidentiality of budgetary process totally disregarded in the situation we are facing at the moment. There will be a time of public reckoning for behaviour which subordinates the processes of this Parliament to the necessity for agreement with the ACTU. The ACTU has screwed down this Government to this practice. It must not be allowed to seek to impose this procedure on successive governments, nor must it be allowed to engender the notion that any government which refuses to practise this special treatment of the ACTU lays itself open to an allegation that such a government of whatever persuasion is anti-union. We must recognise the fact that the ACTU carries the trust of an important number of Australians. It has a special status and is recognised as a union voice in the wage case before the Arbitration Commission. Its leadership knows that it has to develop the capacity to have a constructive and positive dialogue with the government of the day no matter what the political complexion of that government. It is concerned with industrial relations and it is unwise and naive to dismiss lightly the experience and expertise of its professionals in that arena with any glib talk of a so-called club of industrial relations specialists. Theirs is the activity of knowledgeable men who understand the public processes of the dialogue of industrial relations. We may not agree with the results of their discussions but we dismiss the necessity for those discussions at our peril. I believe that the ACTU has a duty to the Australian public to curb the excesses of trade union power. To its eternal discredit, it took very little initiative to do this when the electrical trade unions stood over the Queensland consumers of electricity. It took a good deal of umbrage at the activities of the Queensland Government which sought to address the balance in favour of the public. What we have is a government seen to be by the public of Australia totally subservient to this outside body. We must not allow that process to be sanctified by the processes of this Parliament. No future government of whatever political persuasion must allow itself to be dictated to by any outside body, no matter what threats that outside body imposes on any individual member of this Parliament. We know that members of the Australian Labor Party and members of the Government in many cases owe their position to the support of the ACTU. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(10.40) —`The Poor are getting Poorer' is the heading for an article by Bishop Peter Hollingworth, Executive Director of the Brotherhood of St Laurence, published in the Age newspaper of 26 August. In his article Bishop Hollingworth was critical of the Budget because it failed to overcome the poverty traps which beset the aged, the sick, invalid, lone parents and the seriously disadvantaged unemployed. One often hears the comment: `Surely, no one is really poor in an affluent country like Australia'. Poverty is obviously relative and relates to the fact that in an affluent country such as Australia there is a sub-culture of Australians which now amounts to over two million people who live in relative poverty, compared with the general affluence of middle-income, middle class Australians. What is poverty in Australia? Poverty is when poor families spend between one-third and one-half of their income on rent and the remainder of their income on food. For such poverty stricken families, there is no money left over for a telephone, cars, outings or holidays for the family, sport or hobbies. There is no opportunity to build up funds for an emergency situation involving illness or legal problems. Consideration must also be given to the poverty traps. Pensioners and benficiaries who try to supplement their below poverty line incomes with casual or part time work find themselves facing high marginal tax rates and are therefore locked into the poverty trap. With the costs of their travel, clothing and child care arrangements for single parents, pensioners and other social welfare beneficiaries find themselves either no better off or in some cases even worse off as a result of their employment. The high effective marginal tax rates are caused by the combination of the social security income tests and the personal income tax system. The allowable income of the single pensioner is the amount a pensioner can earn before losing 50c in the dollar from the pension. This amount is $30 a week, plus $6 for each child, which is a total of $36 a week for a sole parent with one child. If the single parent earns more than the threshold the pensioner is subject to both the 50c or 50 per cent withdrawal rate of pension and the 25 per cent bottom tax rate. Of course, it is true that the Federal Government, by raising the tax rebate to $170 a year for single people and $220 a year for married people receiving unemployment, sickness or special benfits, has helped some people who are experiencing poverty. However, my plea is for something to be done for the remainder of the poor people. My own hope, prior to the tax summit, was that the tax free threshold would be raised. I believe that this measure would have provided a means of eliminating poverty traps. Unfortunately, the Government did not raise the tax free threshold level. Another proposal which was put forward at the tax summit was the abolition of the tax free threshold. Fortunately, this most negative proposal was not supported at the summit. I cannot accept the argument that in order to fund reduced marginal tax rates for higher income earners it is necessary to put forward a proposal which increases the marginal tax rates of low and middle income earners. It is impossible, in my view, to abolish the tax free threshold without introducing inequities for low to middle income earners in some way or other. At the beginning of this speech I referred to over two million people who live in relative poverty. This was mentioned in a statement by Bishop Hollingworth. A Parliamentary Library background paper by John Gardiner-Garden entitled `Poverty in Australia' is far more precise in relation to a number of statistics on poverty. I quote from the paper: A survey by the New South Wales Department of Youth and Community Services in August 1984 revealed that emergency State Government aid was no longer being sought for relief in solely one-off crisis situations. Ninety-one per cent of applicants were below the poverty line, and a third were in a `continual and chronic state of poverty'. Ninety-three per cent of applicants were seeking grants every 4 months. A survey by the IFS- that is, the Institute of Family Studies- found that 2.8 million people do not have enough money to feed and clothe themselves properly and that the number of families with incomes less than the poverty line increased more than 22% between 1979 and 1982. Mr MILES(Braddon)(10.45) —During this year, we in the Opposition have constantly heard the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) blast the former coalition Treasurer for having in train in 1983 a Budget deficit of $9.5 billion. No doubt they have done this because they want to discredit somebody whom they know is a capable opponent. More recently, they have tried to discredit him for his honesty and integrity. I wish to make a few comments on this matter for the benefit of honourable members and the Australian people. The largest Budget deficit that can be attributed to any coalition government amounted to $4.467 billion. That is nowhere near $9.5 billion. We find there a comparison between the actual facts and what the Prime Minister and Treasurer have said. At the moment, the Government is trying to smear somebody by stating that he left behind a Budget deficit of $9.5 billion, but in reality such a deficit never existed. The coalition Government's largest Budget deficit compares more than favourably with the Hawke Government's record. In 1983 the Budget deficit was $7.96 billion. In 1984 it was $6.74 billion. The projected deficit for this year is $4.9 billion. The Treasurer is trying to score political points by emphasising the figure of $9.5 billion without giving a clear basis for that figure, and he does his credibility little good. The Australian people know that what government departments would like to spend and what is economically wise are two entirely different things. The previous Prime Minister and Treasurer spent seven years in bringing Australia back from the brink of economic disaster following the reckless, frivolous, carefree spending sprees of the Whitlam Government. When the coalition Government got the economy back on its keel, it lost office to a drover's dog, as described by the present Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). The previous Government had in place a wages pause that was the foundation for the economic growth that has occured in the past two years. The breaking of the drought broke in turn produced a bumper wheat harvest and there was an upturn in the world economy. Neither the Prime Minister nor the Treasurer can claim to have influenced any of these fundamental factors. This Government is being deceived by its own rhetoric, as it was at the last election. One has only to read page 1 of the Budget Speech to realise that the egotism of the Government has reached dizzy heights. It claimed: `We have turned the economy around; we have generated 410,000 new jobs; we have reduced the unemployment rate; we have arrested and turned around the blowout; and we have reduced inflation'. No government can make those extraordinary claims. Are there not 750,000 small businesses in Australia which have a great influence in these matters? Are there not over 6 million workers whose productivity has a great influence on these matters. Are there not 170,000 farmers, graziers and pastoralists who provide over 40 per cent of our export earnings and who have a great influence on these matters? Are there not mining and manufacturing companies which have a significant influence on jobs and unemployment? Are there not individual Australians who, through the desire to be independent of government and be industrious, create wealth from their productivity and, in turn, employ people? A Labor government or any other government which makes such outrageous claims without giving due credit to the many individuals and corporate bodies involved is arrogant and out of touch with many Australians. At present in Australia real interest rates have never been so high. Inflation is heading upwards. Unemployment is over 8 per cent and trending upwards. Our dollar has collapsed. We have a Budget deficit of $4.9 billion and a trade deficit of $10 billion. If these are the signs of prosperity and growth, pity help us when a slump occurs. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(10.49) —Today is International Day of Peace and 1985 is International Youth Year. This evening, I would like to bring together these two themes. For some time I have been concerned at the attitudes of young Australians, faced as they are with the very real threat of a nuclear war. These attitudes received considerable attention as a result of a number of surveys conducted in Perth, Adelaide and Sydney. The Australian Nationwide Opinion Polls Pty Ltd study of young Australians' attitudes, which was commissioned by this Government, revealed very similar results. These surveys and studies indicate that approximately 65 per cent of young Australians, from their early teens to their mid-twenties, believe that there will be a nuclear war within their lifetime and that this war will have a disastrous effect on their lives, if in fact they are to survive at all. Moreover, 25 per cent of those surveyed said that they were so worried by the prospect of an imminent nuclear holocaust that it has seriously affected their future career plans and their plans for getting married and having children. It is therefore not surprising that the response of many young Australians to the reality of this insane nuclear arms race and the probability of nuclear destruction is to live each day as it comes without too much thought for the future. Many of our youth, so the surveys indicate, are growing up deeply concerned and anxious for their future. They use words such as `frustration', `hopelessness' and `despair' to describe their attitude to life. They say that they are powerless to do anything to change the present and shape their future. A point made by many of our youth is that they are bewildered and frustrated by the apparent unwillingness of older people-especially their parents and teachers-to sit down and discuss these matters with them. These, after all, are questions that vitally affect their future-and even the fundamental question of whether they are to have a future at all. Many young Australians, it seems, feel a sense of betrayal in the face of this apparent apathy of their parents and teachers to whom they look for a sense of purpose and direction. They construe this apparent apathy of the older generation, of people such as ourselves, as evidence that we believe ourselves to be powerless to shape our own future. It is precisely this that is doing so much to generate within our youth, who should be our hope for the future, a sense of bitter despair. They are strong words, you might say, Madam Deputy Speaker. Some might think that I am overstating the case. If so, they should read the surveys for themselves. In particular, I commend to the attention of the House the work done by Professor Phil Jennings of Murdoch University, Western Australia. Fortunately, the picture is not quite so gloomy as it appears at first sight. Some of the studies to which I refer also indicate that among our youth there are those who are not resigned to the prospect of a nuclear holocaust in their lifetime and are not filled with a sense of hopelessness and despair. It is, I believe, very much to the point that those young Australians who have not given up hope are, by and large, those who are best informed on the nuclear arms race and on why our world is confronted with such a crazy phenomenon. As in all other matters, with knowledge there comes a sense of power and a belief that something can be done to change the shape of tomorrow. It would also seem that, more than any other single group of Australian youth, it is the children of those who are active in the peace movement who are growing up convinced that all is not yet lost; that the future, which is their future far more than it is ours, is capable of yielding to change. It is they who say that it is not necessary to follow these madmen down the path that leads inevitably to nuclear destruction. It is for these reasons that it has become so important to develop within our schools worthwhile and thorough-going peace studies that will help all young Australians to understand what is at stake in the nuclear arms race, why we need to have such a race at all, and what needs to happen so that we can all stop running. In knowledge there is power and, as Albert Schweitzer was fond of saying: `In youthful idealism, man'-and woman-`perceives the truth'. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(10.54) —Tonight I wish to address the House on that national tragedy known as the Family Court of Australia. It is unfortunate that in the early 1970s the Whitlam Government decided to alter the system of matrimonial law in this country. Mr Hawker —Who was the Attorney-General? Mr SLIPPER —Senator Murphy. It is terrible that we have a court for which many of the litigants have absolutely no respect. Many people are certain that they were in a kangaroo court. Many people leave the precincts of that Court, after finally getting a hearing, feeling cheated. It is awful when we have a situation in which judges of that Court and their families are subjected to the terrible violence we have seen in this country in recent years. That violence is indicative of the basic lack of respect the people of Australia have for this Court. As a lawyer I have always believed one of the greatest advantages we have enjoyed in the past is that we have not had the problems of the United States of America where federal courts, State courts and local courts are all competing for jurisdiction. We have had State courts looking after both the State and Federal matters of responsibility up to a certain level and we have then had the appellant courts which, in some cases such as the High Court have been Federal. Now in the matrimonial and family area the State Supreme Courts have limited power while most cases are heard in the Family Court. We have a situation where people are simply not happy with the way things are going. Perhaps one of the greatest jurists ever in this country, the Right Honourable Sir Harry Gibbs, Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, was motivated to say at a legal convention recently that there is something basically wrong with the Family Court. His Honour did not purport to impugn the honesty of the individual judges, but he referred to the limited jurisdiction and to the difficulties which were experienced. His Honour mentioned that there is great trouble in attracting people of suitable calibre to the Court. We all know how super-sensitive the Family Court has become to any sort of criticism, however justified, of its actions in any direction. There is something to be said for the old system of matrimonial law where we had a judge who was properly gowned and robed sitting in judgment in this very important area. Some people suggested there may have been excessive formality but the litigants still felt that they had a fair go. That is essential because no system of justice in Australia or anywhere else can survive unless people have respect for the institution. The judges of the Supreme Court were not blown up; they did not have wives murdered; and they were universally looked upon and treated with respect. A person whose case was determined by the Supreme Court obviously was not always satisfied with the result but there was a basic appreciation that the Court had listened, adjudicated and made up its mind in accordance with fair principles. The Family Court of Australia-I hope our approach in this matter is bipartisan-is not serving the purpose it was supposed to serve when it was set up. I am sure that all honourable members would agree with me when I say that I find it totally unsatisfactory that judges in this country have been subjected to the outrageous death threats and violence we have seen. Mr Justice Opas has been murdered and we have all heard how the wife of Mr Justice Watson was killed. These are wicked occurrences which, in my view, are entirely un-Australian. We need to abolish the Family Court to ensure that, once again, we have in the family law area a system of justice which is universally respected by all Australians. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 10.59 p.m. The following notices were given- Mr Barry Jones to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Bounty (Commercial Motor Vehicles) Act 1978, and for related purposes. Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act to amend section 69 of the Judiciary Act 1903, and for related purposes. 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: Construction of New Ward Block and Out- patients Department, Repatriation General Hospital, Heidelberg, for the Department of Veterans' Affairs. 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 submarine export training facility, HMAS Stirling, Garden Island, Western Australia. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 17 September 1985: Australian Bureau of Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposal for collection of information-1985- No. 7-New topics to be included in the population survey. No. 8-Survey of exists from the labour force. Defence Act-Determination-1985-No. 58-Intermediate Term Duty Living Allowance and other allowances. States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendments of the schedule to the subsidy schemes in relation to the States, dated 11 September 1985.