Thursday, 21 November 1985 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Debate resumed from 11 September, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(10.01) —Normally the States Grants (General Revenue) Bill would receive a fairly extensive debate in this Parliament. It is an important measure which gives effect to the agreement reached at the Premiers Conference on 30 May 1985 on general purpose assistance for the States. It was to be listed for debate much earlier in this session so that a number of honourable members could examine the financial relationship between the Commonwealth and the States and the relative performance of the States, and pass comment on the way in which the Federal Government is dealing with the States. Because the legislation has been jammed into the end of this parliamentary session and because we have taxation legislation coming on later in the day, to which we want to devote a lot of time-and we will have insufficient time to deal with those taxation Bills anyway-we are obliged to restrict our debate on this particular measure. As it is some time since the second reading speech was made in the House, I will remind the House that three types of general revenue grant are covered by the Bill: Firstly, financial assistance grants for 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 replacing the tax sharing grants under the States (Tax Sharing and Health Grants) Act 1981; secondly, identified health grants for the same three years; and, thirdly, certain special revenue assistance grants to South Australia and Tasmania in 1985-86 and 1986-87 of a tran- sitional nature following the change in the health funding arrangements for those particular States, their arrangements having been different from those of the other States. The three-year financial assistance grants represent a move away from the Fraser federalism concept of tax sharing, providing instead a predetermined real level of financial assistance grants in each of the three years. In 1985-86 the States will receive the same real level of grants as in 1984-85. In the two remaining years they will receive real increases of 2 per cent over the previous year. It is claimed by the Government that this formula will result in a slower growth in grants than would have occurred under the old arrangements. Another feature of the new arrangements is that they follow the per capita relativities recommended by the Commonwealth Grants Commission, again with some special arrangement for Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania-although not all those special arrangements are covered in this Bill. The comment we make about this particular aspect of the measure is that the Fraser Government proceeded along a path of co-operative federalism whereby the States were to be given more control over their tax raising and spending operations. There was a general move towards improving the accountability of State governments and certainly towards giving them more feeling of control over their affairs. This measure takes us right back to centralised Federal control over State revenues. So no longer will the States be sharing in tax revenues, nor will we be moving on from that to possibly a further stage of devolution of power to the States. We are, in fact, going back to the Napoleonic postures of the Whitlam Government by having the Federal Government determine exactly how much the States will get in terms of general purpose grants. It is to be noted that the commitments made by the Government for 2 per cent increases in real terms in the two succeeding years, past the present year, add further to the full range of spending and tax cut commitments that the Government has made within a quite rigid framework which does not take into account possible changes in economic conditions. I make the point today in the House that this Government has committed itself to these fixed real increases in State revenues in 1986-87 and 1987-88 without really knowing whether it will have the cash in the kitty to pay for them. Since our economic conditions are very bad-there are real concerns about how our growth is going to go with the falling dollar and the massive overseas debt and very real concerns were raised yesterday by the Secretary to the Department of the Treasury-I think it is unwise for the Federal Government to commit itself so rigidly so far in advance over so many fields of our fiscal responsibilities. I now turn to the health grants. The figures for the health grants show very clearly the squeeze that this Government is placing on our public hospital systems. Ordinarily, we in the Opposition would be applauding a containment of expenditures in any area of government expenditures. In this case, because of the framework of Medicare which excludes private expenditure, which is readily available to assist in building up the public hospital systems, the Government's measures have the effect of maintaining the stranglehold on our public hospital systems. There is a desperate situation in the public hospital systems. This is seen most in Victoria and New South Wales and it is extending into all the other States. If one looks at the actual figure with respect to the $74 1/2m increase-from $1,057.6m to $1,132.1m-in this year's Budget for public hospitals, one sees that $70m of that was committed to specific items as part of the New South Wales doctors dispute settlement package which was agreed to earlier this year by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett). Except for that, the allocation has remained at around the same level as last year's Budget. So when inflation is taken into account there has been a net reduction in real terms of approximately 8 per cent. Therefore, the public hospital system will be more reliant than ever on the additional revenue that comes from privately insured patients. Yet the whole concept of Medicare is to denigrate private insurance, encourage people to drop their private insurance and accept so-called free hospital beds in public hospitals. Because of the desperate need of public hospitals to gain more revenue than they can get from the public purse, they will have a tendency, possibly, to look for more privately insured patients at the expense of public patients. We have to understand that the Government's financing arrangements for health, of which the measures in this Bill are a part, are a recipe for strangulation of the public hospital system. Because they are based on the absurdity of offering so-called free treatment to people who could well afford to insure privately, they disadvantage in the most severe way the more disadvantaged members of our community. The sick and the elderly are the victims of Medicare. I have spoken about this over the whole period since Medicare was introduced, and indeed before that. It gives me no pleasure to see that the most dire of my predictions have been fulfilled. The way in which the Medicare system is arranged to squeeze out private funds which would be available to boost the public hospital systems is in a state of turmoil and despair. Not a day goes past when we do not see nurses taking industrial action, taking their case to State governments, pointing out the grave deficiencies in the coverage of nursing in hospitals, and without hospital administrators telling us that their equipment and buildings are in a state of disrepair. No day goes past when we do not also hear of the severe difficulties that the sick and elderly have in finding places in hospitals and in being treated for debilitating and painful conditions. If there is one epitaph which this Government will have and which it will regret through history it is what it has done to the Australian public hospital system. The public hospital system in Australia has up to now been one of world renown. Since this Government came into power it has, under the Medicare proposals, gone into a state of gradual and severe decline. That is something to which the Opposition will continue to draw attention. Even this very moment the number of people's names on waiting lists in Victorian public hospitals is 27,000, having increased from an original 8,000. Most of those people are the elderly uninsured. People with fractures that have to be fixed, people who have painful bone conditions that cannot be fixed, people who need hip replacements-people who have painful, but perhaps not lethal, conditions that are so distressing to elderly people, particularly when they are not wealthy enough to insure privately. They must rely on the public hospital system, a public hospital system which has been denuded by the Labor Government which promised so many benefits. Some 20 per cent of the privately insured dropped their insurance after Medicare was introduced. That meant that 20 per cent of the private funds that were available for hospitals were lost to the whole system and they have not been made up by tax dollars. Every private dollar that goes out and is not made up by a tax dollar means another person in the queue. The number of beds in the public sector is still being reduced. Elective surgery is being reduced. Hardly any elective surgery is being done in New South Wales public hospitals. About 30 per cent of the beds in the local public hospital in my electorate are unused. It has a lengthy waiting list for elective surgery and the amount of surgery being done is down very substantially. The Secretary to the Department of Health, Mr Bernie McKay, confirmed this point when he spoke on 18 September at the Senate Estimates Committee hearing. He referred to the fact that private hospitals had plenty of beds and there was a waiting list for public beds. He stated: Private hospitals do have beds. A lot of private hospitals, as you know, are operating at levels between 60 per cent and 70 per cent. They have the nurses; it is just that the patients are not there. The reason the patients are not there is that the Government encouraged people who could afford to insure privately to drop their private insurance. Those people queue at public hospitals, leaving the private hospitals empty. They are queuing to the disadvantage of the poor, sick and elderly who ought to be taking up those free beds. That is the Opposition's concern about this part of the measure. The Government is also wasting enormous amounts of money on medical benefits-this year the Budget is up $256m, 11.4 per cent, over that of last year, which is well above the rate of inflation-because of bulk billing arrangements, because it promised that a person did not have to pay when he or she went to the doctor and because so-called medical entrepreneurs are getting in on the act and ripping off the taxpayer at no assistance to patients. So money is being wasted which could be used to improve the public hospital system. We are very concerned indeed about health grants. We will raise no objections to the transitional arrangements for South Australia and Tasmania. Under the Liberal-National Party Government they had a different arrangement for cost sharing which continued beyond the cost sharing arrangements for the other States. Transitional arrangements have been negotiated with those States to ease the transition to the full system. The Opposition's approach to this Bill, having drawn attention to our concerns, is not to oppose it. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(10.15) —in reply-I thank the Opposition for its co-operation in getting through this important States Grants (General Revenue) Bill 1985. The shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), has taken the opportunity to speak mainly about that part of the Bill which relates to health grants. Of course, he is entitled to do that, although I hope he would be the first to recognise that this Bill makes available funds to the States for a wide range of purposes and health is only one part of it. He has been indulging in an exercise of nostalgia, because formerly he was a Minister for Health and then shadow Minister for Health. He has used that interest of his to put together some words on this particular issue. His words will fall on stony ground, for the vast majority of Australians recognise that he is a senior spokesperson for the Liberal Party of Australia, which is hell-bent on cutting government spending. Therefore, it ill becomes him of all people to talk about extra expenditure in any particular area. Mr Carlton —I said private expenditure. Mr HURFORD —This is a Bill about public expenditure and the honourable member was talking about public hospitals. This Government would love to believe that resources grow on trees so that more funds could be expended in those areas. For a person who for the rest of his days will advocate a cut in government spending and government services generally, it does not become him to be using a Bill such as this to be talking about health expenditure. I end on the note that I am pleased with the co-operation shown in getting this important Bill through and I commend it to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Hurford) read a third time. Debate resumed from 17 October, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I understand it is the wish of the House to debate the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) cognately with the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4), the Social Security (Poverty Traps Reduction) Bill, the Australian Capital Territory Stamp Duty Amendment Bill, the Bank Account Debits Tax Amendment Bill and the Income Tax (Companies, Corporate Unit Trusts and Superannuation Funds) Amendment Bill. There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(10.19) —Mr Speaker, you would have perhaps noticed my reluctance to raise no objection to debating cognately the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) with the other Bills. By arrangement we have agreed that they will be debated cognately, but I will not let the occasion pass without drawing attention to the fact that we have an avalanche of Bills to be debated together in the fag end of a session. There are six Bills, representing hundreds of pages of legislation and notes, to be considered by this House on matters of very grave concern to every Australian. These Bills were introduced in a hurry last Friday night as honourable members were moving off to the airport to catch planes. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford), who was at the table a few moments ago, had the unfortunate duty of being sent in as the running dog of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to deliver these miserable Bills as everybody was going home. The Government intended to put this legislation on for debate on Tuesday, but we made a request that it be delayed at least until today which the Government was gracious enough to grant. Taxation Bills of this nature and extent require much more lengthy public and parliamentary scrutiny than these Bills will have. With regard to the legislation relating to entertainment expenses, the substantiation legislation and the measures relating to primary industry, it will be an absolute scandal if these are sent direct to the Senate next week and required to be passed by the Senate before it rises for Christmas. Indeed, I suspect that there will be an attempt to push the legislation through the Senate next week and, if there are any amendments, to have them back here in the House of Representatives before we rise next Friday. The reason for this is that the Government is correctly ashamed of this legislation. It simply does not want the spotlight of parliamentary scrutiny to be placed upon it. A wide range of matters are covered and the Government merely wants to push them through as quickly as possible in order to avoid wide debate. Let me look briefly at what is contained in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3). This Bill contains a whole series of measures, many of them unrelated. The first deals with petroleum and general mining group loss transfer, which is a beneficial measure but requires extensive debate. A second measure relates to rebate for moneys paid on petroleum shares; it withdraws tax rebates for share capital subscribed to petroleum exploration, prospecting and mining companies. This measure was originally intended to encourage investment in company shares in the energy sector. The removal of the rebate is at odds with stated Government policy to encourage investors into the equity market. It is certainly more immediate encouragement to invest in shares than the imputation system which the Government is bringing in. The Opposition is certainly not happy with this and would like more time to debate the measure. There is also a measure relating to calls on afforestation shares, withdrawing income tax deductions allowable for one-third of calls paid on shares in an afforestation company by companies, trustees and non-resident individuals. This is another attack on a primary industry and against reafforestation; it is something that my colleagues would like to look at with more time than that available. The Bill also provides for amendments to the prescribed payments system and for reductions in investment allowances, in concessions for Australian films. There is an additional livestock valuation option for horse breeders, which is an interesting one, providing an additional valuation option under which stallions may be written down at 50 per cent and mares at 33 1/3 per cent. We would like to examine that if we had more time but we have more important things to think about. There is a tax on certain Commonwealth education assistance schemes. There is also a very important change in easing current restrictions on taxation secrecy provisions which we would like to look at in some depth but simply will not have the time to do. There is also a taxation agreement between Australia and Finland within the legislation. Also within the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) there are three stamp duty proposals. Those are all measures which deserve to be broken up and examined in more detail, but they are only part of the package of Bills. We also have the Social Security (Poverty Traps Reduction) Bill, a measure arising out of the 19 September tax statement of the Treasurer. That is a matter that my colleague the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) will be dealing with in the very limited time he will have available to speak on these Bills. The Australian Capital Territory Stamp Duty Amendment Bill will align stamp duties in the Australian Capital Territory with those of the States. We do not object to that but we would like to look at it more closely. The same comments apply to the Bank Account Debits Tax Amendment Bill relating to Australian Capital Territory debits taxes for banks; we would like to examine that but we cannot. The Income Tax (Companies Corporate Unit Trusts and Superannuation Funds) Amendment Bill relates to the taxation of public trading trusts and ties in with the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4), which is a major compendium of measures, including the notorious measure relating to entertainment expenses. Just to indicate to the House what we are dealing with here with the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4)- Mr Cohen —It is not a notorious tax. Mr CARLTON —It is a notorious tax. Mr Cohen —You are protecting your spivvy mates. Mr CARLTON —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Enviroment (Mr Cohen) said that we were attempting to protect our spivvy mates. That is the wording used by the Minister. That is the gutter language which has been used by his colleague the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) in the Senate in relation to this matter. The Minister and his colleagues will regret these continuing attacks on business and on restaurateurs which they have indulged in ever since they put forward this absurd measure. I will show exactly how absurd this measure is as we proceed. I will make perfectly clear later in my speech what the Opposition's view is towards any abuses of this system. However, I did want to draw attention to yet another example of the continuing attempts by Ministers and by back benchers in the Government to denigrate the business community while their Treasurer is supposedly going around trying to convince them that this is a useful Government for business investment. The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) covers the notorious measure, of denying income tax deductions for entertainment expenses and detailed rules on substantiation of employment related expenses and current travel expense claims. It also denies deductions for the travel costs of a spouse who accompanies an employee or a self-employed person on a business trip and gives alternatives to substantiating in full for car expenses. It extends the company tax system to public unit trusts which carry on a trade or business-we have no particular quarrel with that-and provides that capital expenditure incurred by primary producers after 19 September 1985 on water conservation or conveyance of a kind presently qualifying for immediate income tax deduction will be deductible in equal instalments over five years. That particular measure is totally counter-productive. It is claimed that it will save the revenue $25m in 1986-87 and $20m in 1987-88. That is a very false saving because this particular measure encourages people on the land to carry out, in effect, public works for reticulation of water supply and various other activities to control floods and to control salinity. In the River Murray system alone the proposed savings of $25m and $20m that are achieved by these private measures-privatisation, if you like, of conservation rather than it being done by public capital works-will be dwarfed by additional costs that will be required merely to save the Murray River system. Those activities that private people were prepared to carry out with a tax deduction of this kind will be curtailed by this measure. The Opposition will oppose this measure and will vote against this particular clause. My colleagues, in debate, will expand on our reasons for that and certainly members from various parts of the country will indicate why this is a totally counter productive measure. It is a measure that will certainly not save the revenue at all; it will cost the revenue dearly. The Bill goes on to continue the immediate deductibility of capital expenditure on soil conservation and extends it to expenditure in respect of land degradation generally. There are then certain measures to stop exploitation of concessional income tax treatment of lump sum superannuation payments. We have no objection to that. Also, there is a move to extend the income tax rebate available in respect of taxable amounts received under life assurance policies to similar amounts paid under policies issued by certain State government insurance offices; in other words, to put the State government insurance offices on the same basis, as far as their clients are concerned, with private offices. We do not disagree with that. There are certain changes to repatriation statutes and there is also the measure to ensure that the carers pensions introduced from 1 November 1985 is taxed on a similar basis to the former spouse carer's pension. My colleague the honourable member for Richmond will be referring to that. Four Acts are to be amended in relation to the changing tax status of public trading trusts and there are some technical changes consequential on amendments to the Social Security Act 1947. Heaven forbid! What an extraordinary collection of measures we have in this cognate debate. In Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) alone we have an extraordinary collection. Let me go on to the area which will form the basis of an amendment by the Opposition in Committee. If that amendment is not accepted it will lead to the Opposition voting against the measure in toto. I refer here to the cessation altogether of deductions for entertainment expenses incurred in running a business. To get to the bottom of this let me go to the original statement made by the Treasurer on 19 September. The commentary in statement No. 4, at page 37, headed `Entertainment Expenses', states: There has been understandable public criticism of the availability of tax deductions for business executives and others which effectively subsidise their entertainment costs. No doubt the Treasurer was made aware of this public criticism from some source, which is unnamed. This is the opening statement. He goes on to say: A good deal of claimed business entertainment is done on a reciprocal basis and as much for social and personal benefit as for business purposes. We all know that some is but is a good deal of it? There is no evidence to show how much of it is done in this way. The Treasurer continues: The so-called business lunch has lowered public confidence in the fairness of the tax system. I question the Treasurer's justification for implementing this measure. The Treasurer goes on from the statement that a good deal of business entertainment is done for social or personal benefit to state: The Government can no longer allow the general body of taxpayers to subsidise the largely social activities of people-usually well-off people . . . Having said that a good deal of claimed business entertainment is done for social and personal benefit, he goes on to say in the second paragraph that the general body of taxpayers cannot continue to subsidise the largely social activities. He has moved beyond the original statement to refer to `usually well-off people'. The class war is coming through once again. Anybody in Australia who starts a business, works hard and earns more money than somebody else is to be attacked by this Government and the people opposite as being a usually well-off person. Government members interjecting- Mr CARLTON —Why are Government members trying to shout me down? This is a very important point. Anybody who tries to do better in Australia, who tries to do something for this country and who tries to create wealth is denigrated by the Australian Labor Party and the Government. The Treasurer goes on to say in his statement: The only effective way of preventing tax deductions for essentially private entertainment- Honourable members will notice that the argument is being built up now; originally the Treasurer said that some of it was for private purposes, then he said it was largely social activities, and now he is saying it is essentially private entertainment- that is claimed to have a business purpose is to disallow deductions for entertainment altogether. It is recognised that this will mean that, in a number of cases- how many cases we do not know- deductions will be denied for genuine business expenses. There is, however, no practical alternative- says the Treasurer- to disallowance across the board if effective action is to be taken to stop abuse in this area. They are two ill-argued, illogical and downright dishonest paragraphs, and the Treasurer knows they are. They are inspired by envy. They are also inspired by an incapacity on the part of the Australian Taxation Office to police the relevant section of the legislation. Also, they are made illogical by other measures in this Bill. Apparently it is too hard for the Taxation Office to police section 51 (1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act, which allows for legitimate deductions to be claimable. It is quite clear there and, if it is not sufficiently clear, we shall move an amendment to tighten it up. We are in no way supporting the misuse of section 51 (1). Dr Klugman —Of course you are. Mr CARLTON —Let me make a clear distinction for the honourable member for Prospect. If, for example, a company director and his wife take out to dinner one night another company director and his wife and they go out to an expensive restaurant and hardly a question of business is discussed, then that should not be subsidised. Mr Cohen —It's all right for the poor worker to subsidise. Mr CARLTON —I say to the Minister that that should not be subsidised. It is clear that abuses of the system of that sort should be stopped, and they should have been stopped by administrative action. But the Treasurer says: `Let us make it simple. Let us make it easy for the Taxation Office, because it cannot go out and look at these things and distinguish between them on the basis of the legislation already available'. What is simple? Eight-and-a-half pages of legislation, that is what is so simple! It is not a simple disallowance of deductibility for entertainment; it is eight-and-a-half pages of taxation complication. So when the taxation officers said `Treasurer, it is too hard for us to do this. It is too difficult. We want to make it simple', he said: `All right, I will include that in my statement'. After he said to them `Go away and produce legislation which is simple', they came back with eight-and-a-half pages of garbage and 18 pages of explanatory notes. Mr Dobie —With half an hour to debate it. Mr CARLTON —And we have half an hour to debate it. It is a load of garbage; it is nonsense. What is in conflict with what the Government is saying, that one cannot find out what the expenditure is for, is 21 pages of new legislation for substantiation of business related expenses-21 pages of it in detail!-and seven pages alone of that devoted to the substantiation of car expenses. Mr Cowan —A kick in the pants for the small businessman. Mr CARLTON —Of course it is. It is an overload of paper work and is also in conflict with what the Government says about entertainment expenses. It says that one cannot work the entertainment system by substantiation; it is too hard and it is to be made simple. However, on the other hand, there will be eight-and-a-half pages of legislation and 18 pages of explanatory notes. That is one contradiction. Secondly, the Government says that as to all these other expenses, in order to prove that they are legitimate there will be 21 pages of substantiation legislation, seven pages in total devoted to cars. This is an absolute fraud. The Government cannot get away with it. Heaven forbid, what does this legislation include? Look at these nonsenses: . . . entertainment made available to the general public for the purpose of business advertising or promotion (e.g., shows put on in a retail shopping mall- this is the populist side of what the Treasurer says-will be deductible. In other words, if one has a business promotion where members of the public are generally invited in, it is deductible. But if a business is trying to make a hard quid and selling its product to a limited group of clients and brings them in and offers them a drink and it is not open to the general public, it is not deductible. Where is the logic in that? How many of these promotions will have a little sign on the door outside in the last five minutes saying `General public most welcome'. What a nonsensical proposition! It has a populist streak in it that simply disgusts me. What about this: . . . the cost of overtime meals of an employee provided pursuant to an award or collective industrial agreement; That expense will be deductible. However, the cost of an overtime meal for somebody who is not on an award or subject to a collective industrial agreement will not be deductible. If the people working hard to get the business organised-the supervisors, who might work six or eight hours beyond the normal time-go out and have a meal the cost of that meal will not be deductible. However, for somebody who is on an industrial award or subject to a collective industrial agreement-one of Mr Crean's friends-it will be deductible. What is the logic of that? If we are trying to get entrepreneurship going in this country, surely we want to encourage in exactly the same way the hard workers, the managers as well as the people on the shop floor, in the shops and in the offices. Yet we deny them a tax deduction for overtime meals while giving it to people on industrial awards. That is outrageous. It cannot be accepted by the coalition. This will be deductible too: . . . expenditure in providing entertainment to the sick, disabled, poor or otherwise disadvantaged persons. What exactly is this intended to do? This is one of the most insulting provisions that I have seen introduced into this Parliament. The Government has been looking around for various ways in which it can give deductions which the more soft-minded observers in the community may picture as being somehow compassionate, to put in the legislation along with provisions giving preferential treatment for the unionist cause, in an attempt to dress up the legislation to make it look as though the Government has some social conscience. I read it again: `expenditure in providing entertainment to the sick, disabled, poor or otherwise disadvantaged persons'. Does this mean that a salesman trying to sell something in a sheltered workshop will be able to take the supervisors in that workshop out to lunch and claim that as a deduction, but if the salesman goes into the factory next door for the very same purpose he is not able to take people there out to lunch and claim that as a deduction? I cannot think of a greater insult to the people who work in the sheltered workshop. That is insulting in the extreme. I would like the Government to explain exactly what is meant by this provision in the legislation. Also there are ill-drafted provisions which the Government appears to have added hastily to try to stop further rorts. If we introduce complicated legislation of this kind, with eight and a half pages devoted to entertainment expenses and 21 pages to substantiation, we know jolly well that the experts will be looking at it to find loopholes. Certainly, in regard to a number of points I have raised in the House the Government has tried to bring in certain measures allegedly to close loopholes. For example, the hostess allowance was removed in the 19 September statement. We have no quarrel with that. However, we notice that the Government says it will prevent the possible misuse of that by not allowing people to employ their relatives to carry out entertainment functions. Relatives will not be able to be employed and the cost their employment claimed as a deduction. Of course, if they were allowed to be employed it would be an employment deduction and not an expense allowance. The Government thinks that people might get around that provision. Of course, the term `relative' includes all sorts of people-brothers, sisters, wives, uncles, aunts, grandmothers, grandfathers and de facto wives; they are all included. None of those relatives can be employed and their employment claimed as a tax deduction if in any way their employment concerns the provision of entertainment. If one runs a family business and a relative meets people at the door of a reception, presumably the money that is paid out for that entertainment by way of wages is not deductible. I cannot understand that. I will move on to a really critical element of the taxation package. It is said that the purpose of the taxation package is to protect the revenues. It is stated that it will produce a net gain of $310m in government revenue. I know that there is no calculation in the Treasury or the Australian Taxation Office to support that estimate. People have been talking to people in the department. Before the Treasurer went overseas he told journalists that he would produce the rationale for the $310m. It has not been produced and the reason that it has not been produced is that there is none. Crude calculations were done in regard to what would be saved by bringing in this measure without taking into account any secondary effects. The only analysis of any substance that has been done has been commissioned by private firms. I refer in particular to the BIS/Shrapnel analysis, which showed that there would be a net gain to government revenue of only $79m and not the $310m announced in the Government's tax statement, and that these measures would reduce employment in the economy by 18,600 persons and reduce employment in the hospitality industry by 11,100 persons. My colleagues on the Opposition benches, particularly the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) and the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), will deal with that aspect of the debate because I do not have the time to do so. The study also showed that it would reduce Australia's gross domestic product by $434m. This calculation by Treasury and the Tax Office is similar to the whisky tax that was imposed under our Government some years ago. The spirits tax was bumped up to an extraordinarily high level. That Government did not do its sums properly. It did not talk to anybody outside the tax division of Treasury or outside the Tax Office. It did not take into account the fact that if the price of whisky went up to that level, people would drink untaxed wine, which of course they did. The net return on that measure was negative, because that Government had not done its sums. In regard to this measure I know as a matter of fact that this Government has not done its sums. The measure will not bring in $310m; it will be lucky to bring in $79m. Indeed, I notice that Mr Stackhouse in the Bulletin, having conducted a survey of business, states that it is optimistic to expect that it will bring in $79m. The measure is far too complex. It certainly goes beyond what the Treasurer said on 19 September. It requires employers to police their employees' tax returns. It is an unnecessary intrusion into business activities. It discriminates against self-employed persons who might not have in-house dining facilities. Heavens above, a whole story can be told in that regard. It discriminates against employees who are not covered by industrial awards in regard to a meal allowance. It is lengthy, complex and difficult to understand, and it does not even define entertainment. Certainly, the exclusions will discriminate against sole traders and partnerships. So it is a disgraceful measure and it simply cannot be supported. What the Opposition will do in this case is agree to an amendment to section 51 (1) of the taxation Act, which embodies the principle of legitimate expenses in the running of a business in achieving a taxable income, to ensure that this is not abused in the area of entertainment. We propose to move an amendment to section 51 to the effect that a deduction is not allowable under sub-section (1) in respect of an entertainment expense incurred, except in respect of an expense which is directly attributable to gaining or producing assessable income or directly attri- butable to the purpose of gaining or producing assessable income. That will tighten up that provision because the Taxation Commissioner claims that part of that provision has been used as a loophole. That is what we will do. We will move that amendment in the Committee stage. If that amendment is not accepted, we will vote against the whole measure. It is a disgraceful measure. We cannot look at it carefully in the time that we have been given by the Government. It will be looked at carefully in the Senate as time allows, but we oppose it. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(10.49) —The tax package presented by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) is a tribute to the continued superb economic management of this country in the last 2 1/2 years. What is of great concern, however, to those on this side of the House is the failure of a number of groups in our society to accept that every worker, from street cleaner to managing director of our infamous multinationals, should contribute his fair share of tax to enable this Government to provide the services which are expected by all Australians. But do we see that in the economy and in the community today? No, we do not. What we see is a campaign being waged to institutionalise tax avoidance and minimisation. We see full page advertisements in financial journals and the popular Press with headlines such as `Stop Keating taxing you out of business'. One advertisement stated: The Small Business Letter is famous for its tax minimisation advice. The advertisement further stated: In fact, if you subscribe to the Small Business Letter now, we'll show you how you don't have to pay any tax in Australia at all. That typifies the views of the people who are represented by honourable members on the other side of the House. Groups such as Business against Non-Deductibility-that is BAND-are pushing the line that Australia cannot afford to stop working through lunch. In fact, a poll that was published in today's Australian purports to show support for that group on the question of business entertainment claims and the Government's crackdown on them. The article stated that about 77 per cent of the community opposed such a tax. If I were to put a question such as the one that was asked in this poll, stating that people would lose jobs because of a tax measure, what would people say? It is like asking: `Do you want to get rid of your mother?' People would say `No, of course not,' and there would be almost 100 per cent agreement on that question. Rubbish questions and rubbish polls such as that support no one. The more unscrupulous people in the community affix their business cards to restaurant menus and do a deal with the restaurateur. They say: `At the end of the month I will claim as advertising a certain proportion of the total I have spent here on meals'. They claim that as a legitimate advertising expense. What this all adds up to is a concerted effort by a privileged few to avoid paying a fair share of tax. The cry associated with this measure is: `What will they mean to small business and to employment?' Let us just look at what it might do to employment. Clause 9 of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4), refers to non-allowable entertainment expenses. The Government, as indeed the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) aptly pointed out, cannot allow the general body of taxpayers to subsidise the frequently social activities of a group of usually well-off people through deductions for entertainment expenses. We accept that. We on this side of the House do not walk away from that. Why should a business executive or middle level public servant who has access to Diners Club, American Express, Bankcard, Mastercard, Visa card and all the other plastic that is around, enjoy the dubious benefits of so-called business lunches when the same privilege is not available to the coal miner at South Bulli, the wharfie at Port Kembla or the labourer on Wollongong City Council? If we are concerned with equity, there is really no argument. If we are concerned with the so-called loss of business that may occur because a client can no longer enjoy a four-course meal with wine at a business lunch, I suggest to honourable members that those sorts of businesses that have to rely on lunches as a means of gaining business would be better off out of the game. Much public comment has been made in respect of the impact these measures will have on the restaurant industry. What has emerged, quite clearly, is that no one knows what the effect will be. I shall quickly flick through some information that backs up my statement. On 11 October Peat Marwick Mitchell and Co. claimed that something like 10,500 restaurant employees would be out of work because of the measures announced by the Government. Some industry spokesmen contradicted that statement and said: `Oh no, it is likely to be 18,000 to 30,000 within a year'. On 15 October one honourable member from Queensland said that 1,000 people had lost their jobs in Queensland in the week since the measures had been announced. They work pretty fast in Queensland to get rid of people. Another industry survey by the Restaurant and Catering Association, the results of which were reported on 19 October, claimed that 10,000 jobs in restaurants may be lost by the end of the year. So we have had a range of figures so far. A survey carried out by American Express International Inc.-Amex-was a ripper. It is a really good example of how things can be reported. According to one report in the Australian by John Short, 30,000 jobs will be lost to the industry; yet a report on the same survey in the Sydney Morning Herald said that only 13,500 jobs would be lost. Fair dinkum, who are we trying to kid here? We have heard of beaten-up journalism, but that really takes the cake. The Opposition spokesman in the Senate, Senator Messner, said on 28 October that 15,000 jobs would be lost because of these measures. We have quite a range now; we have gone through the whole spectrum. A survey by the group BIS-Shrapnel Pty Ltd in the Australian on 31 October said that 18,000 jobs would be lost. The pinnacle of all these estimates, the one that really took the cake, came from the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) who said that 80,000 jobs would be lost. That is fantastic. As our colleague in the Senate, the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), rightly pointed out, total employment in the restaurant industry has been estimated at only 76,000, so in fact we are putting out of jobs people who have not even got them. Let us face it, this is absolute nonsense. These estimates are just that-estimates. I know of people who have two or three jobs in two or three restaurants and who, in fact, use two or three names while they are doing it. This sort of industry is subject to people coming and going. It is subject to people who have the ability to go in, pick up a job, work it for a while and then leave. When changes are wrought one will always find that structural readjustment takes place. The end result at present is quite simply this: Many of these over priced, overstaffed restaurants have come back to the fold; they are providing cheaper meals and better service and the worker of Australia is benefiting. I reflect on the views that have been expressed by honourable members opposite, particularly the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), in trying to put forward alternatives to our tax package and on the approach that he has taken to the whole question of taxation. It is very interesting to serialise events. This is like Blue Hills; it is like a serial because it goes on and on and on. What do we get at the end? Nothing different, because the Opposition has not got any policies. On 19 September after the Treasurer's tax statement was delivered, the Leader of the Opposition said on the PM program in respect of the tax package measures: Some of them I support. I obviously support the reduction in marginal rates of tax, I support some of the changes in the corporate area. On 27 September we suddenly found that the Opposition strategists and tacticians got together and said: `Hang on, we had better be a bit careful about what we do here. If we accept all the goodies and knock the nasties we cannot be seen as being consistent or reponsible. We must try to look at the package and see how we can force upon the people of Australia that we accept the goodies-the tax cuts-but we will not have the nasties'. That was the line that was pushed by some of the Opposition dries and probably all the supporters of the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock). They probably told the Leader of the Opposition to get his act straight. But of course at that stage the Leader of the Opposition would not flinch. He did not move. On 8 October the Age reported: Mr Howard defended himself against criticism from some Liberals and some commentators that he had not gone in hard enough against the package. He said: ``I think our tactics were absolutely correct. It would have been foolish to criticise every aspect of the tax package, especially as some things were in our policy.'' That was on 8 October. The Leader of the Opposition actually said that. Then suddenly the pressure came. The wets started to get a bit wetter and the National Party of Australia started to get a little bit edgy. On 8 November the Leader of the National Party, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), said he wanted the whole tax package scrapped. So he started to turn the screw as well, and we suddenly found that the Leader of the Opposition was under a little bit of pressure. Then out it came, sure enough, on 13 November. Michelle Grattan reported in the Age: This week the Opposition capitulated entirely to the politics of opportunism. I could not have said it better myself. She continued: It scrapped its line about looking at the legislation before deciding on how to vote, partly on the feeble excuse that the legislation was taking longer than expected. She went on to say in that article, and I thought it was just beautiful: John Howard, who came to the leadership as the man who knew where he was going, is now the chap who appears embarrassingly in the middle, between the toughies whose mutterings have led to the premature birth of the coalition response, and the `wets' who either disagree with an Opposition opposing revenue bills or want to keep the former line of waiting to see the legislation. As she went on to say: It is good to see that the old habits are back. At least we know where the Opposition now stands on the tax package: right there under that big sign labelled ``Expediency''. To just put the seal on this I quote the Leader of the Opposition who, on 16 November in speaking to the conference of the Victorian branch of the Liberal Party, tried to gee up the troops in Melbourne. He said: I believe that the Opposition took precisely the right response. To have supported the package would have resulted in a virtual sell-out of the enterprising in our community. On 8 October the Leader of the Opposition said: `No, we will look at it. There is only the capital gains tax that we will not support. We will look at the rest of it and probably go along with it.' By 16 November, having capitulated to the forces within his own camp, he said: `I believe we took the right step and that the package should be opposed.' Where does that leave us? It leaves us, on this side of the House, with what we have always known-the Leader of the Opposition does not have a policy on tax. He is too worried about looking over his shoulder. He has a policy on nothing. Those of us on this side of the House fully endorse and support the Bills put before us today and the great work done by the Treasurer, who is the world's greatest Treasurer. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(11.00) —I am absolutely amazed that Government members can do nothing but indulge in personal abuse. Not one Government member is prepared to defend publicly the inconsistences in the Government's tax package. The honourable member for Mac- arthur (Mr Martin) came into the House and proceeded to read from newspapers. He made no original contribution to this debate. He could do nothing but read from newspapers and heap invective on the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). He is obviously lining himself up for the title of junior head kicker in the Australian Labor Party. Obviously, the man has a great future. Today we are confronted with a cognate debate of six Bills which are described by the Government as a tax package. Frankly, the word `package' implies that there is consistency within the legislative proposals that the Government has brought to this House. There is absolutely no consistency. The Government has introduced the worst alternative of all the options it considered at the ill-fated, ill-starred Tax Summit. The Government spent $160,000 on research. Guess who did the research? It was Rod Cameron of Australian Nationwide Opinion Polls Pty Ltd. The Government spent $160,000 of taxpayers' money to find out what the people of Australia thought of the Tax Summit. Universally, the people of Australia thought that the Tax Summit was an absolute joke. Probably, that $160,000 worth of research would have been the worst deal that this Government has ever done. Mr Cohen —Where is your evidence for that? Mr BLUNT —The Minister, who is lounging on the front bench, says: `Where is your evidence?'. He could table the results of the $160,000 research and we would know exactly what the people of Australia thought. There is probably a good reason why the results have not been tabled and why certain freedom of information requests made to get the research results have not been responded to yet. When they are responded to the information will probably be heavily censored. I invite honourable members to guess why the Government would seek to censor the results that it has from the $160,000 of taxpayers' money which was spent on what is really an extension of party political research. One of the Bills contained in this package of Bills being debated cognately is titled the Social Security (Poverty Traps Reduction) Bill. The Opposition has, for some time, recognised the need to do something about the disincentives that apply to social security beneficiaries as a result of the reduction in social security benefit that arises when additional non-benefit income is earned. We welcomed this Bill. We thought that the Government was at last coming to grips with the need to provide an earnings incentive for social security beneficiaries in Australia. This Government's fiscal policy, its tax policy and its lack of control over the deficit are such that there is an absolute and paramount need to provide incentive for beneficiaries, people who are in very difficult financial circumstances, to earn additional income. The Opposition thought that the Government had recognised this problem and would do something about it. It thought it would see a thoughtful and comprehensive review of the social security system, the way benefits are paid and withdrawn and how the system interacts with the taxation system, which in terms of this debate has been nothing more than an exercise in rhetoric. This Government has failed to come up with a comprehensive tax policy. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) was rolled at the Tax Summit. Option C went out the window. We have got this rag-tag mix of initiatives which introduce all sorts of penalties on people, which prohibit this sort of deduction and penalise people who have invested in agriculture. When we look at this Bill which proposes to do something about poverty traps we find that the Government has got it wrong in that regard also. The Government has done nothing decisive or comprehensive to come to grips effectively with the problem of poverty traps and the excessively high effective marginal tax rates. Mr Hand —We are trying to solve the problem that you left us. Mr BLUNT —The member of the Socialist Left who is whingeing and interjecting loudly should have a look at effective marginal tax rates. Under this proposal they come to 100 per cent. As I said, this Government has done nothing to come to grips effectively with poverty traps. The high effective marginal tax rates affecting pensioners in receipt of some non-pension income still exist. It is instructive to examine the case of a supporting parent with two children receiving rent assistance and to see what effective marginal tax rates will apply to that person's non-pension income after this legislation comes into effect. It is significant to note that the legislation will not come into effect until November 1986. It is now November 1985. The Government recognises the problem and has introduced legislation to fix it but we are told that it will be a year before it is prepared to move decisively to introduce this legislative initiative. So what sort of concern, what sort of priority, does this Government have? Frankly, it is rhetoric, it is crocodile tears. If it were really concerned about the people caught in these poverty traps, caught in these disincentive traps to earning additional income, it would be moving today to have this poverty trap legislation implemented as law in Australia as quickly as it is proposing to implement other parts of the legislation we are debating today, such as the ban on entertainment expense deductions. The fact of the matter is that some recipients earning non-pension income of between, say, $207 and $233 a week will be subject to an effective marginal tax rate under this proposal of 74.5 per cent. The great inconsistency in this proposal is that at the moment people earning these amounts are subject to an effective marginal tax rate of only 60 per cent. This massive initiative of the Government is actually going to increase effective marginal tax rates by 14 per cent for some social security beneficiaries. How can the Government justify describing this proposal as a poverty trap reduction? The plain fact of the matter is that the Government has got the figures wrong. It is under pressure. The Tax Summit collapsed around it. It had to bring into this Parliament something which could be described as a tax package, and the reordering of marginal tax rates has some impact on social security beneficiaries. So what did it have to do? The Government had to bring in legislation which at least gave the impression that it recognised the problem and was doing something about it. But of course this proposal was put forward so rapidly that the Government got the figures wrong. So for some social security beneficiaries-I am talking about a supporting parent with two children receiving rent assistance-this legislation will actually increase the effective marginal tax rate. Frankly, I find that amazing. I wonder how this Government can describe itself as caring about those people in our community who are less well off. If it had any real concern it would get its sums right, it would look at the need to integrate the tax and social security systems and it would do that immediately. It would not bring in such changes like a carrot, wave them around the place and say: `What a great caring Government we are; we are really concerned about the down and out, the people who are not well off, and we are going to do this but we are not going to do it for a year-and you should be grateful for that, by the way, because when we do it some of you will pay 14 per cent more tax'. What sort of government is this? I have cited one category of beneficiaries whose effective marginal tax rate will increase, but that category is not alone; there are others. The same situation exists for those beneficiaries who have a non-pension income of between $374 and $393.60 a week. Their marginal tax rate will approach 94 per cent. One wonders what their effective marginal tax rate is now, before this major initiative. It is 50 per cent. The effective marginal tax rate has gone from 50 per cent to 94 per cent. Members on the Government side of this chamber have gone mute; they cannot speak. They cannot say anything because, quite frankly, they do not realise the impact of this legislation. They cannot work calculators and they do not question the decisions taken by their Cabinet. I recommend that they have a good, hard look at not only the proposals which the Government has brought in in respect of poverty trap reductions but also some of the other supposedly tax reform package initiatives. Quite frankly, the proposals are inconsistent, inequitable and wrong, and they will have a major detrimental effect on the structure of the Australian economy and our ability to compete internationally. This Government has introduced a number of initiatives which are absolute economic nonsense and will put Australia at the mercy of the more competitive nations in this world. The Government believes that it can build a wall around Australia and treat it as some sort of social laboratory in which it can experiment in terms of income redistribution and so on. The Government does not realise that this country is part of the world economy and that our fortunes depend on our capacity to trade, and trade competitively, with other countries around the world. As a result of this Government's tax package, as it describes it, Australia will have a reduced competitive position. We will not be able to compete with those other countries. The proposal to tax, in the hands of employers, the non-cash benefits paid to employees is effectively another payroll tax. That adds to the cost of production and reduces our ability to compete internationally. This Government is crazy. It just does not understand what it is doing. I have been diverted, because of the significance of the impact of these proposals, from what I sought to speak about, that is, the impact of the Government's supposed poverty trap reduction legislation on social security beneficiaries. Inasmuch as the measures would benefit some people, they should be implemented immediately. There are some reductions in effective marginal tax rates for beneficiaries, but they are not across the board reductions. The whole proposal is inconsistent and inequitable. Over the summer recess the Government should go away and review its proposals and bring back into this Parliament early in the autumn session a proposal which would effectively integrate the tax and the social security systems. It is not as if the Government does not have the appropriate advice to be able to do this. A booklet was published quite recently and was authored by two people who are actually part of the Government's policy co-ordination unit in the Department of Community Services. They suggest a very practical and effective way of integrating the tax and social security systems. It is a very sensible proposal. It has a lot of logic behind it. The Government would do well to address itself to some of the suggestions contained in that booklet. Not only would it have a benefit for those who are on social security benefits at present; it also would have the impact of introducing to Australia a far more rational system of tax-a system of tax which recognises that social security is part of the income system in Australia, just as the impact of tax on income earned by Australians is also significant. The two systems must be integrated. We cannot have a situation in which there is no incentive for people to earn additional income-to break out of these poverty traps. We cannot have a situation in which people are actually encouraged to remain on social security benefits because the impact of the tax system on the wages those people are capable of earning is such that the effort is not sufficient to bring out the motivation to do it. Obviously, this Government does not recognise the importance of incentive, motivation and consistency. Until it addresses those problems we are doomed to have an inconsistent tax policy. There are a number of other matters which I would like to discuss today but, in deference to my colleagues who also wish to speak to this legislation and the importance of it, let me just say that it is important to note the scale at which effective marginal tax rates impinge on social security beneficiaries. I have referred to what I consider to be one of the most significant cases of beneficiaries; that is, the supporting parent with two children. The effective marginal tax rates which apply to such a beneficiary range from 24 per cent at the bottom end of the income scale-that is, a person with a weekly income of between $54 and $64-and rise quite steeply to 62 per cent for a person with a weekly income of $64 to $207. The next jump takes the effective marginal tax rate to 74 per cent. According to the Treasurer, every other taxpayer in Australia has just had his or her maximum effective marginal tax rate reduced to 49 per cent. The level then drops-this shows the incon- sistency of the Government's proposals-from 74.5 per cent to 65 per cent. Then, because the Government did not recognise the impact of its proposals, it jumps back up again to 80 per cent-an effective marginal tax rate of 80 per cent. If honourable members think that that is quite high, I suggest they look at the next scale; it is 94 per cent-a 94 per cent effective marginal tax rate. The figure then begins to taper off, but even the taper is not consistent; it becomes 44 per cent, 47 per cent and 56 per cent. The Government cannot even get an effective graduation in marginal tax rates. I see that some members of the Government look rather embarrassed. These calculations were done by me and were checked by the Statistics Group of the Parliamentary Library. I invite the Government to examine the impact of its proposals and perhaps come into this House at the closing stages of the debate and explain, firstly, why it is not introducing the proposals immediately, because for some beneficiaries they do have an impact, and, secondly, why it has got the numbers wrong. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(11.17) —I, too, wish to speak to the Social Security (Poverty Traps Reduction) Bill. Obviously I have to begin by referring to some of the utter bilge that we have just heard. How can anybody seriously put forward the proposition that a set of measures that consists of increasing the income tax free areas for single pensioners and pensioner couples, doubling the income disregard for pensioners with additional children and abolishing the additional income test on supplementary rental assistance, will make the problem of poverty traps worse? What the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), who has just spoken, did was to make the obvious point that if one increases income test free areas the area over which shading out of the pension and benefit will take place will move up the income scale and obviously a class of persons who were not formerly subject to shading out now will be. That is an obvious truism. If he is seriously arguing that because of that the Government's anti-poverty trap measures are counterproductive, the argument is absolutely absurd and ought to be rejected as such. Tackling poverty traps was one of the nine principles enunciated by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) at an early stage of the tax debate. It is undoubtedly an urgent priority. There is an obvious perversity in the fact that once people on low incomes, pensions or benefits get beyond those free areas they are subject to the combined effect of the tax and social security income tests. That in combination with the effect of other income tests, such as that on supplementary rent assistance, and other things, such as the loss of fringe benefits, means that some classes of people face effective marginal tax rates which are well in excess of the present maximum rate of 60 per cent. Obviously, that is an unsatisfactory state of affairs and it is one that needs to be addressed. It is also worth noting that over the last 10 years or so certain categories of social welfare recipients have suffered a long term erosion in their position. That applies particularly to pensioners or beneficiaries with dependent children and the single unemployed. That situation has begun to be turned around by this Government. We all know that since the change of government we have seen over indexation and increases in pensions and benefits of the order of $1 1/2 billion. That represents a significant turnaround in the problem. Nonetheless, it remains the case that the situation of many of those pensioners and beneficiaries, particularly those who receive extra benefits by virtue of having dependent children, requires continued improvement and has to remain a major government priority. At the time that the tax reform question was under consideration, there was some discussion about how the Government could best help people on low incomes, how it could best distribute the benefits of tax reform to people on low incomes, as well as those on middle to high incomes. Clearly people on middle to high incomes have been delivered major tax relief in the form of marginal rate cuts but obviously one cannot do a lot for people who have a zero or very low income tax liability by annulling that liability. That underlines the importance of coming up with a good outlays package to assist those people. That is precisely what the Government has done with its anti-poverty trap measures. I would have liked to see more done because it is possible to describe other measures that could have been taken to address poverty traps and some of the measures that have been taken could have been strengthened in various ways. Nonetheless, what has been done involves a gross revenue cost to government of $215m in 1987-88; $185m is the net revenue cost for 1987-88. Those measures are extremely well targeted, notwithstanding the inane remarks of the honourable member for Richmond, the previous speaker. I believe that the Government is to be congratulated on having taken them. I shall make a number of observations about the way in which pensions and benefits have moved in regard to the updated Henderson poverty line. We have a rather lamentable situation if we look at the long term and compare the situation of those receiving these kinds of benefits with the updated poverty line. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard two tables from a discussion paper produced by the New South Wales Council of Social Service which looks at the gap between unemployment benefit and the poverty line and also the gap between pensions and the poverty line. Those comparisons are made on the basis of a number of criteria looking at pensioners and beneficiaries in different circumstances. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- Table 1 GAP BETWEEN UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS AND THE `LABOUR FORCE' POVERTY LINE Category of benefit Benefit and family allowance ($ p.w.) Poverty line August 1984 ($ p.w.) (including housing) Amount below poverty line ($ p.w.) Percentage below poverty line Single person 16-17 years, living away from home... 50.00 (max.)...120.80 70.80 54 Single person over 18 years... 81.10 120.80 39.70 33 Married couple... 153.30 161.60 8.30 5 Couple with 1 child... 172.60 194.20 21.60 11 Couple with 2 children... 194.10 226.80 32.10 14 Couple with 3 children... 217.10 259.50 42.40 16 Lone parent with 1 child... 121.20 155.00 33.80 22 Lone parent with 2 children... 142.70 187.70 45.00 24 Lone parent with 3 children... 165.70 220.30 56.60 25 Table 2 GAP BETWEEN PENSIONS (AGE, INVALID, WIDOWS), SUPPORTING PARENT BENEFIT AND `AT HOME' POVERTY LINE Category of benefit Benefit and family allowance ($ p.w.) Poverty line August 1984 ($ p.w.) (including housing) Amount below poverty line ($ p.w.) Percentage below poverty line Single person... 91.90 97.90 6.00 6 Married couple... 153.30 138.70 +14.60 +11 Married couple with 1 child... 172.60 171.30 +1.30 +1 Married couple with 2 children... 194.10 204.00 9.90 5 Married couple with 3 children... 217.10 236.60 19.50 8 Lone parent with 1 child... 121.10 132.20 11.00 8 Lone parent with 2 children... 142.70 164.80 22.10 13 Lone parent with 3 children... 165.70 197.50 31.80 16 Mr BALDWIN —I thank the House. From looking at those statistics one sees that in particular single unemployment beneficiaries, single parents and pensioner couples with three or more children are undoubtedly still well below the applicable poverty line. I will take one example in regard to unemployment benefit. A single person over the age of 18, according to this table, is 33 per cent below the updated Henderson poverty line. That is a crushing indictment of the existing state of those benefits. As I have said, the present Government has turned around a long term erosion of benefits payable to specific categories of people and that is to be welcomed. However, that does not mean that it does not remain a very major priority to achieve further improvements in those sorts of benefits. I conclude by reiterating that we could look at a number of other areas aimed at addressing the problem of poverty where further improvements can be made. Some of them have been addressed in the anti-poverty trap package announced by the Government. There are other areas where more could be done. I refer to an obvious one and that is the basic level of pensions and benefits. This Government is committed to raising the basic pension level to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. That is a goal which has been set down and repeated by the Government on a number of occasions. I regret to say that at this stage that objective has not been achieved. I certainly hope it will be. It needs to be a major priority of the Government. The Government has not achieved it and it is still a fair way off. The statistics group in the Department of the Parliamentary Library has prepared some tables that pertain to this matter. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table which shows pension rates as a percentage of average earnings on a quarterly basis from 1981-82 to 1984-85. Leave granted. The table read as follows- PENSION RATES AS PER CENT OF AWE 1981-82... 23.5 23.5 22.3 23.0 1982-83... 22.5 22.9 22.7 24.0 1983-84... 23.5 23.7 23.2 23.3 1984-85... 23.1 23.6 23.4 23.7 Standard Rate pension as a percentage of average weekly total earnings for all male employees. Note: Pensions as a percentage of Average Weekly Earnings calculations are based on the new AWE series and as such will differ from calculations based on the old series. Update: Late November Source: Average Weekly Earnings, ABS (6301.0, 6302.0) Quarterly Summary of Statistics, DSS. Mr BALDWIN —I regret to say that, although the table shows some progress has been made, that progress is far from spectacular. At the June quarter 1984-85 the basic pension level was 23.7 per cent of average weekly earnings. It ought to remain a major priority of government to achieve improvements in those areas. I certainly intend to do everything I can to have the alleviation of poverty accorded the priority it deserves in the Government's list of concerns. Mr DOBIE(Cook)(11.25) —Like my colleagues on this side of the House, I shall not vote against the Social Security (Poverty Traps Reduction) Bill or any initiative to alleviate or wipe out poverty in the community. However, I call into question the time frame for its introduction and the extent to which it actually addresses the problem of poverty traps. It is an important Bill and I hope that no-one in this House would not agree that the area of poverty traps is one which demands action and answers. Quite simply, pensioners and beneficiaries must be given the opportunity to improve their living standards and rise above the poverty cycle. I find it a great irony that the methods being used to alleviate poverty traps seem to reinforce them. In fact, this is a Clayton Bill; it is the benefit one gets when one is not receiving a benefit, at least for another 12 months, when it will not be a real benefit. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) correctly pointed out in his second reading speech that the interaction between taxation and social security results in effective marginal tax rates for certain pensioners being higher than those facing the highest income earner. I shall not repeat the most effective figures put forward earlier in this debate by the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), figures which it should be re-emphasised were confirmed by the Department of the Parliamentary Library statistical section. It is an indisputable fact that we will always have in our society those who simply cannot handle their own needs and it will remain the responsibility of government to see that every individual is afforded the means and the opportunity of living in dignity and security. While poverty in the community is serious, according to the Institute of Family Studies, poverty among families with children is particularly worrying. In a recent report the Institute estimated that up to 60 per cent of one-parent families had income less than the so-called poverty line. I shall come back to this matter later. The response of honourable members on both sides of the House to poverty should be to look beyond the peripheral and get to the root causes. To quote from the coalition's policy, `the solutions lie in policies wider than the traditional responses of income security and services'. The idea of income support encompasses three elements: A basic level of support, supplements for those in particular need and, by no means least, incentives for persons to provide for themselves and the removal of impediments to people seeking to do so. The Social Security (Poverty Traps Reduction) Bill signals a move, albeit a small one and eventually an ineffective one, towards encouraging self-provision. Until now this socialist government has done precious little to further this desirable object. On the contrary, its policies will make people more reliant on the welfare system. It has discouraged people away from the ideal of self-provision through such moves as the lump sum superannuation tax, the assets test and, most recently, the proposed capital gains tax. These scurrilous policies have attacked the working family in Australia. Despite the bleatings of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating), they have affected not just the 12 millionaires the Prime Minister repeatedly spoke of but the retired and retiring working people around the nation. One of the aspects of this Bill is the proposed abolition of the separate income test for rent assistance in favour of the inclusion of rent assistance in the general income test. The Minister estimates that this will put more money in the pockets of those currently in receipt of rent assistance. Those are fine words and fine ideals, and in ordinary circumstances one could expect this to happen. However, these measures will not take effect until November 1986. Why on earth has this Hawke Government pushed this line of benefit? Having to wait a further 12 months will be no comfort to those embedded in the poverty trap. They will need all the additional rental assistance they can get following the blow-up in rentals as a result of this Government's imposition of a capital gains tax. I return to the coalition's response to poverty and the broader social welfare problems. We as a coalition are committed to encouraging people to seek self-provision by the enhancement and extension of taxation deductions and rebates and the removal of impediments in the income security system. We also see the importance of seeking self-provision by encouraging industry participation in creating employment opportunities for such groups as the disabled, the aged in full or partial retirement who have retained skills developed over a lifetime, and those people made redundant. I endorse coalition policy initiatives in this area, but I believe that Parliament needs to address a problem which will be a far greater burden on our social security system if we do not tackle it earnestly, with firm resolve, on a bipartisan basis, and now. The problem I refer to is the breakdown of our social structure-the breakdown of the family unit. It is happening all around us. It is insidious in its effects and unrelenting in its progress. In my electorate, with a staggeringly high concentration of single parent beneficiaries, we are seeing already a social dis- array which would not have been thought possible when I was first elected to this Parliament 19 years ago. The expression used was: `This sort of thing could not happen in Australia'. It certainly has happened, and I suggest to all honourable members that they look around their own electorates analytically to see just what is happening now. All political parties must accept responsibility for this situation. History will judge us very severely if we are not seen to be moving towards solving the underlying social problems facing us. I raise this issue not in any sanctimonious, holier-than-thou, puritanical sense. Rather, I do so as a keen observer of a trend which is already far down the track. Nor does my own electorate have any peculiar local causal factor, apart from being the only beach area linked to the rest of Sydney by the suburban train system. All parties in this Parliament should look at how society can be arranged so that as we approach the twenty-first century we can look forward with optimism and hope and not face a fall-back to the horrific standards of the nineteenth century. The manic social disturbance of the Industrial Revolution saw industrial abuse of children and the industrial abuse of family life and the industrial destruction and rearrangement of the family unit. We are now seeing urban abuse of children and urban abuse of family life as society continues to become highly urbanised as opposed to industrialised. Unless this national Parliament puts its mind, with serious intent, towards the protection of families, we could be coming, more quickly than we realise, to an era of social disarray on a massive scale. The social welfare organisations, which are becoming conscious of a society in disarray, have neither the clout nor the funds to tackle the problems which are presenting themselves. I do not particularise any one such organisation, but I am most conscious when talking with so many of them, of a feeling of despair, frustration, and even hopelessness that we are not facing the causes of issues in our society. So it is that I stand here worried that we are not facing the areas of responsibility as sensibly as we might. One area the House needs to look at is the problem of garnishment of earnings for family maintenance payments; in other words, to throw back on to the parents the responsibility for caring for the financial welfare of their children. Presently the measures for forcing a respondent to keep up maintenance are open to abuse. I believe that garnishment may be one way of tightening up this area. It may also have the side effect of keeping family units together. We should consider the flow-on resulting from a respondent not meeting his or her maintenance responsibilities. A mother with young dependent children, forced to stay at home to look after those children and thus receiving no independent income, becomes a beneficiary of the state. If she wishes to improve her financial position by going to work, she faces the problem of finding adequate care for her children. Clearly this raises another problem, namely, lack of short and long day care facilities for working parents with children. We have to face the reality in Australia today that there is an ever-increasing number of family units with one parent. It is my strong belief that it is vital that this style of family unit is protected, as well as the two parent family unit, for the health of coming generations. At the present time the Family Court of Australia regulations permit a court, where a person has refused or failed to comply with a maintenance order, to make a garnishment order in respect of various classes of money, including bank deposits, earnings and debts due to the respondent. However, under the regulations garnishment is not available at the time of the original order, on a voluntary basis, or automatically upon proven default over a period. The 1984 report of the National Maintenance Inquiry stated: Garnishment is almost universally regarded as the most effective collection remedy available against employed respondents. It continued: In countries such as New Zealand and the U.S., garnishment of earnings is rapidly becoming the primary enforcement tool. Advantages of garnishment are that control over the funds is taken out of the respondent's hands and that earnings, which represent the primary or only asset of many respondents, are tapped directly at their source. Further, the report stated: . . . it may be that in many cases removal of moneys concerned from the control of the respondent will minimize some of the personal difficulty making payments and promote early adjustment to the fact of paying maintenance. The report contained several recommendations on garnishment, including that a court be able to order garnishment at any time where a respondent consents and that the court be given a discretion to order garnishment at the time of the original order. I believe that these recommendations are still awaiting consideration by the Hawke Government. I strongly commend the Government and the Judges Rules Committee of the Family Court, which is presently considering these matters, to follow the recommendations of the 1984 inquiry. I am aware that there are many encumbrances to any garnishment scheme. I do not have time to talk about them now, but it is an area requiring urgent and serious discussion by both sides of this Parliament when we are talking about poverty traps. I hope that any resolution of this significant matter would not be subject to party political debate in this House. I say again, in conclusion, that I, like my colleagues, am appalled that the benefits contained in this Bill will not take effect for another year. As I said, with the increases that will happen, and with no increase in the value of what is being proposed, will it really be a benefit at all? I think the Minister should be condemned for putting this forward as a benefit that will help to reduce poverty. It is a cruel and unfair expectation of hope for the poor in our community. I further regret that many members of the Government have been using these matters as publicity schemes throughout Australia without mentioning November 1986 as the time it will come into effect. My office in Caringbah is filled daily, and I do not speak in a political sense but in a social sense. It is a crime that these poor people, and I use the word literally, have had their expectations raised. They have made inquiries of the Department of Social Security and have found that the scheme will not come into effect for a year. It was actually 14 months from the date of announcement by this Government. I apologise to my Whips for having gone over the time allotted, but I believe that these things have to be said because this approval, this regard for poverty traps, has to be bipartisan and has to be taken up by both sides of the House. I have spoken with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) on this very matter. We are of the joint opinion that in the coming decade we cannot approach poverty on cheap party lines nor can we allow this House to have Ministers of any party come in here and falsely raise the expectations and hopes of those who are in no position to help themselves. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(11.40) —It is a pity that the previous speaker, the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie), wasted so much of his speech on issues that were not relevant to the Bill. Mr Dobie —They are relevant to Australia though. Mr LANGMORE —Certainly the issues he raised are important, but most of what he said was irrelevant to the Bills. I want to comment briefly on only those parts of these Bills which relate to the Australian Capital Territory. The Commonwealth Grants Commission report on financing the Australian Capital Territory, which was published last year, drew attention to the fact that the revenue raising effort in the Territory is significantly below that in the States. Some taxes normally collected in the States are not collected in the Australian Capital Territory and the rates of others are at a lower level. There is no justification for these differences on either equity or efficiency grounds. Some of the differences may have occurred because Federal governments several decades ago thought that incentives were required to attract people to move to Canberra. That purpose no longer exists because the Australian Capital Territory offers most of the services which are available in any of Australia's State capitals. Other differences have occurred simply because State taxes have been introduced or increased without comparable action being taken in the Territory. It is obviously fair that these anomalies be corrected. Equity in tax treatment between the States and the Australian Capital Territory will remove a cause of complaint in other parts of the country about the Territory and will also remove some minor distortions which have contributed in small ways to minimisation of taxation by residents of the States who have used the Australian Capital Territory for certain transactions. There are several clauses in these Bills which affect the Australian Capital Territory. One, in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3), involves applying stamp duty and tax to the transfer of units in unit trusts. This will remove the anomaly whereby the transfer of shares and other securities are dutiable but units in unit trusts are not. There is no reason for continuing to discriminate in favour of units in unit trusts. Another provision of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) will prevent the avoidance of stamp duty on non-bona fide mortgages. A third change, in the Australian Capital Territory Stamp Duty Amendment Bill, imposes stamp duty on loan securities. At present the Australian Capital Territory is the only State or Territory without stamp duty on loan securities. This Bill will bring the Australian Capital Territory into line with the rest of Australia. The Bill also increases the rates of duty on conveyances of real property; stamp duty on these transfers is currently substantially below that of the States. The fifth change proposed by this package is to double the rate of the bank account debits tax in the Australian Capital Territory in lieu of the introduction of a State-type financial institutions duty. No government enjoys introducing new taxes or increasing tax rates. People in the community do not generally welcome such changes. However, there was no protest when these minor measures were introduced in the Budget other than some ritual posturing by the Opposition. I did not receive a single letter of protest, which is in sharp contrast to the reaction of the Canberra community to one or two other Government decisions this year! This is a clear indication that there is general acceptance of the reasonableness of these changes. The changes would have been made regardless of whether the Australian Capital Territory was to become self-governing. However, given that these tax increases are occurring and that the revenue goes entirely to the Commonwealth, the number of reasons for Australian Capital Territory residents to want responsible government has increased. The slogan of `no taxation without representation' has a rich history. While there are few Canberrans who want to follow the example of the American colonists in fighting for their independence, there is no doubt that the number of Territory residents who want self-government has been increasing. Recognition of the benefits which responsible government offers has been growing, most notably with the forthright advocacy of the Canberra Association for Regional Development. That umbrella business group has joined with all welfare organisations, most unions, all political parties, the Canberra Times and other media outlets and the education sector in supporting self-government. The introduction of responsible government will ensure that policies for services in the Australian Capital Territory are made by people accountable to Australian Capital Territory voters, that services are better co-ordinated and gaps in services filled and that the opportunity to set priorities which more closely reflect the preferences of Canberra residents is available. The Government's proposals for responsible government are likely to be announced next week. We are therefore close to the end of a debate which has lasted for several decades. I hope that there will be general acceptance of the moderate and reasonable plans for a small council with responsibility for most services for the Australian Capital Territory community, linked with a guarantee of continued funding on the same basis as the States. The establishment of a responsible and democratic council for the Australian Capital Territory will be the most important symbol of the growing maturity of this Territory. We will move from being controlled by 12 unaccountable fiefdoms to government by an accountable council. That growth of responsibility will add visibly to the soul of Canberra-a soul which some people claim to be unable to find but which has always been here. There is already a strong tradition of co-operative voluntary community activity in Canberra in welfare, the Services, the arts and sport. In fact it would be hard to find a city with more organisations per head of population. That framework will soon be completed with our own modest but adequate political arrangements. These tax Bills are justified regardless of whether Canberra becomes self-governing because they create greater equity between the Territory and the rest of Australia. They will, therefore, contribute to reassuring the rest of Australia that the Territory is carrying a fair share of the country's revenue effort. This is essential to maintaining national interest in the development of the national capital. Therefore, the Bills are a small but important step in Canberra's development. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(11.47) —We are dealing today with the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) and cognate tax Bills and it is inevitable that the debate will be wide ranging. I was rather disappointed to hear the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore) comment on the fact that he had had no letter of protest in his electorate office concerning these Bills. It could have been that he was referring only to the specific provisions in the Bills relating to the Australian Capital Territory. I find it hard to believe that he has had no letter of protest of any of the matters covered in the Bills before the House. My office is still being inundated by letters from those people who feel that they have been grossly and unfairly treated by this taxation package. It is not surprising that they should feel that way. The honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) accused the Opposition parties of being purely partisan in the way in which they have spoken in the debate on this tax package. But it is not a matter, as he has suggested, of pure political expediency. The Opposition parties, having looked at the tax package, have found things in it that are quite undesirable. It is those things that are quite undesirable to the nation's economy that we bring to the attention of the House and the nation in today's debate. One of the things that are of major concern is that the taxation package fails to deal in any way with the major problem that faces every Australian taxpayer, the problem of ballooning government expenditure and how it can be brought under control. In the limited time available to me this morning, I want to deal with clauses 11 and 12 of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) which deal with the question of soil conservation and water conveyance. These clauses deal with the changes in the Income Tax Assessment Act which will mean that the deductibility that once existed for the conveyancing of water, for the modification of irrigation techniques, and which applied on a 100 per cent in one year basis will now be spread over five years at 20 per cent. I remind the Minister at the table, the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), and the Government that these clauses are an attack on every South Australian. I note with interest that the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil) is to follow me in this debate. I hope that he will be gracious enough to explain to the House and to his electors how he defends provisions that will mean that the water that flows down the River Murray and into the towns of the Iron Triangle in South Australia-the towns of Whyalla, Port Pirie and Port Augusta-will be worse than it need be because the opportunity to modify irrigation systems has been lost under this Hawke Government. I am not talking specifically about what these provisions do to Riverland irrigation areas. I am talking specifically about what these provisions will do to every South Australian because water in the Murray will be worse as a result of the provisions we have before us today, provisions defended by the Government only on the grounds that they save $25m over five years. If any honourable member in the House sat with me on the border of New South Wales and South Australia where the Murray enters South Australia and watched the Murray, in its own picturesque way, meander into South Australia, he would have to face the uncomfortable, inescapable truth that while he sits there-I hope the honourable member for Grey will join me there one day-every 12 minutes a semi-trailer load of salt or 24 tonnes of salt will flow past his eyes. Why? Because the River Murray catchment area is much of what was once an enormous inland sea. All of the water that flows into the River Murray in Victoria, New South Wales and the southern part of Queensland inevitably brings with it salinity. It has done it since time immemorial. There are also natural inflows that simply cannot be checked and which also carry salinity into the River Murray basin and into South Australia. In addition, irrigators, by applying water to their irrigation properties, have increased the problem because the River Murray water they apply to their properties seeps through the soil to the aquifer and carries additional salt into the river basin. Much of the salinity that flows into South Australia does so because of inadequate irrigation practices in Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia. The answer, of course, is to encourage irrigators within the River Murray basin to change their irrigation techniques from the wasteful flood techniques to the more accurate distribution of water to each plant by dripper or sprinkler. That means installing sprinkler lines to get to the plant the water it needs. When that is done the drainage inflows into the river are dramatically reduced. I do not talk merely for the sake of talking in the House. Let me illustrate my point by relating what happened in the Loxton irrigation area after the Noora evaporation basin was installed. The Noora evaporation basin was designed to take the excess water-the drainage water from the irrigation areas of Berri, Renmark and Cobdogla-and pump it out to Loxton to evaporate where it was well away from the River Murray catchment area. Because of the action that growers in the Loxton area and areas upstream had taken in modifying their irrigation techniques under the provision that allowed them to write off the cost of the modification in each tax year, the $15m Noora evaporation basin has proved to be grossly overengineered. I do not say that critically. It was a genuine error. However, because of the action of growers in rectifying their own irrigation techniques, that enormous expenditure has proved to be larger than is necessary. What does this Government intend to do? It intends to take away the one provision that has encouraged irrigators to apply water accurately to plants and to minimise the saline inflows into the river. I challenge the honourable member for Grey to tell the electors in Whyalla, Port Pirie and Port Augusta why it is that he will vote for a provision that effectively means that there will be more saline water flowing into a desperately dry South Australia. For the sake of $25m over five years, South Australians are saddled with an even worse water flow than they otherwise might have. It will require evaporation basins like the Noora one, which will mean enormous outlays in Commonwealth money anyway. If that were not enough, the South Australian Government had the audacity and sheer hide to run into an election, planning and in fact holding last week a conference on River Murray salinity. I show the House but a few of the reports from conferences on River Murray salinity that have been held since 1978. We need another conference like we need a hole in the head. What we need from the Hawke Government and what we have seen nothing of is some action on River Murray salinity. Action has been in precious short supply. I was so concerned about the relative inaction on major matters of River Murray salinity that on 25 May this year I asked the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), who represents the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), which water resources projects the Government had initiated, and I elaborated, and which projects were already in progress and which the Government had brought to completion. I am still waiting for an answer to a question which the Minister would clearly prefer to avoid. I ask honourable members to compare that with the response that the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) got when on 15 September 1982 he asked the then Minister for National Development, Mr Anthony, what the Fraser Government had done for River Murray salinity. The honourable member for Hawker had a list in his hands by 13 October of the same year. My plea is not a plea for irrigators, but a plea for every South Australian. South Australia simply cannot be a productive State without good water. I wonder how many of our listeners are aware of the fact that to produce a square metre of carpet in Australia requires 66 litres of water. To produce a tonne of rubber or other synthetic material in Australia takes 11,800 litres. To produce a tonne of steel, which also ought to concern the honourable member for Grey, takes 10,000 litres of water. To scour a tonne of wool requires 36,000 litres of water. If South Australia is to be a State with any future at all, it has to have good water. The action that this Government proposes to take will effectively further increase the saline problems that every South Australian faces. I have accused this Government of taking too little action in the area of water conservation. Mr Cleeland —What did you do? Mr ANDREW —I thank the honourable member for his interjection. The actions of the Fraser Government in the area of River Murray water salinity mitigation were without parallel. I want to reveal to the House just how much money this Government has spent on the River Murray basin since it came to office. From the years 1983-84 to 1985-86 there has been a fall-a fall, if you please-in money allocated to water resources within the River Murray basin. The honourable member for Grey is anxious to cry rubbish. The honourable member for Grey will want, of course, to throw into those figures the figures that were spent on the Burdekin dam. Mr Simmons —They have a good member. Mr ANDREW —If one takes the Burdekin dam expenditure, it is true that in total water conservation in Australia there has been an increase. I thank the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) for his comment about members because that may not reflect awfully kindly on the honourable member for Grey. If one takes a look at what is happening in South Australia, one finds that there has been a fall in money allocated to River Murray water conservation in the very State that most needs good water. I am well aware of the time and therefore I will cut my remarks short. It is not only in the area of the allocation of funding for water resources that we have seen a pruning of Government expenditure. In addition, we have this absurd requirement that says that irrigators will no longer be able to write off against their tax bill the money they spend in improving the way they use water or in improving the water that is available to fellow South Australians. As well as that, soil conservation has been inadequately addressed by this Government. I remind the House that in February 1983 the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, promised to provide at least $4m in year 1, rising to a maximum of $20m in year 4, for soil conservation. In the third Hawke Budget we have an allocation of only $3.8m for soil conservation; well short of the targeted allocation. Mr O'NEIL(Grey)(12.00) —I must say from the outset that it is always a pleasure to follow the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew), who is one of the more decent fellows on the other side of the House. He has a genuine concern for the River Murray, as I do. I do not intend to speak too much about the River Murray but I would like to point something out to him because obviously he has not done a lot of homework. I will give him the benefit of the doubt as being ignorant that the Fraser Government spent almost nothing on the River Murray compared with this Government. For instance, I know the honourable member shares the concern I have about the tragedies that have occurred in the Iron Triangle in my electorate, particularly those of the young children who have died from amoebic meningitis. This Government intends to filter all the water that goes through the Morgan pipeline to that area to overcome this problem. I know that the honourable member is sincere about this, just as I am. In the meantime we have fully chlorinated that water so that those sorts of tragedies will not recur. These are some of the positive steps that we have taken to eradicate this horrific problem. I now want to address my remarks totally to the Social Security (Property Traps Reduction) Bill. As I have stated in this House on many occasions, in some areas of my electorate unemployment runs at a higher level that the national average. The most concentrated area of unemployment in my electorate of Grey is in the three industrial cities of the Spencer Gulf; namely, Port Pirie, Port Augusta and Whyalla. Unemployment in this area runs as high as 25 per cent. I am truly au fait with poverty traps. Not a week goes by without my being confronted personally with some of these problems. Those people struggling desperately on the bottom of the economic ladder welcome any measure that will lighten the burden even a little. For this reason the Social Security (Poverty Traps Reduction) Bill 1985 has my wholehearted support. Anything that this Labor Government can do to alleviate the problems of the disadvantaged is warmly welcomed not only by the people of my electorate but by all concerned Australians. The poverty cycles caused by high rents and the interaction of tax and social security provisions have been attacked by this Bill. People living in housing-related poverty-that is, pensioners and beneficiaries in private rental accommodation-will have their situation eased by the abolition of the separate income test on rental assistance for both pensioners and beneficiaries. The income test applied to rental assistance has been one of the most unfair traps. The abolition of this very strict income test will remove a poverty trap facing about 700,000 pensioners and beneficiaries who rent privately, and this I warmly welcome. Instead, rent assistance will simply be added on to payments and be subject to the normal income test like other additional payments, such as additional pension benefit for children and mother/guardian allowance. In effect people now receiving a part rate of rent assistance because of their private income will become eligible for the maximum rate and other pensioners and beneficiaries renting in the private market who satisfy the rent test will also become eligible for the full or a part rate of rent assistance. As many as 300,000 people renting privately will receive up to an extra $15 a week in their rent assistance. Research has shown that the groups most likely to be poor today are: Single unemployment beneficiaries, especially those out of work for extended periods; pensioners and beneficiaries with children, especially sole parents; and pensioners and beneficiaries in private rental accommodation. This Bill has not only targeted some form of help to those in housing-related poverty but has also extended help in the form of additional allowable income for pensioners with children. The income disregarded for children of pensioners will be doubled from $6 to $12 a week per child. This, plus the increase in the basic free areas, will mean that pensioners with children will have higher free areas than currently. Reform of the taxation system has offered a unique opportunity to correct some of the inequities or poverty traps facing the already disadvantaged of our community. Until now many pensioners or beneficiaries who have tried to increase their meagre income by finding some part time work have found themselves taxed at a rate higher than that for the highest income earners. An example of this is pensioners and beneficiaries currently receiving rent assistance and paying tax. They face an effective tax rate of 87.5 per cent, which is outrageous. This serves as a disincentive to working and traps people into the social security system and into poverty. This Hawke Labor Government is taking positive action to eradicate this kind of situation. Until now, poverty traps have actually punished welfare recipients and prevented them from becoming more self-supporting. Pensioners will gain from new measures designed to encourage them to work to supplement their pensions rather than be confined to the poverty traps. This Bill introduces higher pension income-test free areas, a further example of the Government's positive action. The pension free areas have been increased only once since 1972. The basic income test for pensions will be more generous. From November 1986 the amount pensioners may earn before pensions are affected will rise from $30 per week to $40 per week for single pensioners and from $50 per week to $70 per week for couples. The increases in these free areas will protect about 140,000 pensioners with modest incomes from any loss of pension. Although the free area increases apply only to pensioners, as a result of changes in the 1985-86 Budget, the benefit free area will be increased from $20 per week to $30 per week in May 1986. A reliable indicator of poverty has always been the use of emergency relief. Many who live in poverty derive the major part of their income from some form of social security. They are also the heaviest users of welfare services, particulary emergency relief. May I at this stage make some positive remarks about the welfare agencies who do some fantastic work to alleviate the situation of the less fortunate in our community. Most of the people in this House today are familiar with or know of the services of the St Vincent De Paul Society, the Brotherhood of St Laurence, the Smith Family and the Salvation Army, along with other voluntary charitable organisations. Without the support of these voluntary organisations many would be living well and truly below the poverty line. Families who are having difficulty making ends meet would be living well and truly below the poverty line. Coupled with love, dedication and practical assistance of food, blankets, clothing, emergency accommodation and household items, the St Vincent De Paul Society and the Salvation Army carry out their multifunctions each and every day. I know other charitable organisations do this constructive work also, but my association has been mainly with the St Vincent De Paul Society and the Salvation Army, particularly with the St Vincent De Paul Society, of which I had the privilege of being an active member for a short period. Through its many branches, or conferences as they are known within the society, the St Vincent De Paul Society in Australia provides accommodation for the genuinely poor, regardless of denomination, at no cost. Through its family centres it provides good used clothing and sells it at a low price to provide funds for the Society's activities. Furniture is also provided to those in need. The Society provides disaster relief and shelter for homeless men, who also receive a meal and shower. All of this is more than welcomed by the underprivileged in our community. As I have already stated, on a personal basis my involvement has been with the St Vincent de Paul Society, particularly with the Whyalla Conference. I commend the workers, especially the women, who toiled for many years sorting donated clothing in the unbearable conditions of an iron shed lacking air-conditioning, but never complaining. The temperature often soared well above 45 degrees celsius. The dedication of these people is truly outstanding, and without this form of voluntary organisation the plight of the underprivileged would be horrendous. I cannot speak highly enough of these workers. The Salvation Army is perhaps best known for its soup kitchens. The destitute of our society can always find a meal at the door of the Salvation Army. The Brotherhood of St Laurence, which was founded late in 1930, is another social welfare organisation always at the ready to relieve the low-income earners and their families as well as pensioners. The founding of the Smith Family in 1922 was perhaps the biggest relief many families have benefited from over the years. It is not pleasant to be destitute at any time of the year, but Christmas always seems to loom darker over the heads of families in this situation. Parents become fraught with anxiety as they try to make this one day of the year a little brighter than the rest. The Smith Family has `rescued' many families over the years by its assistance of clothes, food hampers, furniture, cash assistance and toys for Christmas morning. This anonymous body has brought relief to many. Families in poverty face inordinate problems trying to survive. Many express feelings of unfulfilment and that they lack status in society. It has been stressed by poverty stricken people that adequate personal income and support services are only the beginning of their search for identity and fulfilment. The increases contained in this Bill will benefit hundreds of thousands of people. In the short term they will have extra money and, in the longer term, greater independence and self-sufficiency. Repeated studies have shown that children of people on social security are in greatest risk of poverty. At the end of the Fraser-Howard years there were about 750,000 children in poverty in Australia. This Hawke Labor Government has reduced that number significantly and, furthermore, those children will benefit from the extra payments to be made to pensioners under the income disregard for children as of November 1986. It is Labor's commitment to raise pensions and benefits to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. As one who has a great affinity with those in need, I am well aware of the hope that this Labor Government gives to the poor. The Hawke Labor Government is responding positively to those needs with this type of legislation. I am delighted that we have brought in this piece of legislation. It is a change. We are giving hope to the underprivileged-an area that was neglected by the previous conservative Government. I am delighted to commend this legislation to the House. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(12.14) —In the course of a debate that embraces so many Bills, it is hard to cover them all. Accordingly, my intention in the few remarks I have to make on the package is to address the philosophy of the Government's approach towards this tax reform concept as now embraced, and also to look at the implications we all know are there for the Australian economy. First, we know that the tax package is not the preferred course for the Government. We know that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) advanced to the National Tax Summit his option C. The outcome, of course, was his option ACTU. That was rejected and we finished up with option A. What we have is now before the people of Australia at a time when universally there is alarm at the deteriorating Australian dollar, rising interest rates, the application of tighter and tighter monetary policy as the only arm of the Government's economic policy that it seems prepared to embrace, the constraints of the accord and the implications for the productive sector of the economy. Anybody looking at Australia's balance of payments cannot fail to be alarmed at where we are going. The percentage of Australian gross domestic product now represented by interest payments alone is between 14 and 17 per cent of the net value of our exports. I believe on present trends that at least by the end of this financial year it is likely to rise to about 25 per cent. Indeed, if one adds together the value of our wool, beef and grain exports they would barely meet the present liability on interest payments. Given the serious implication of the declining value of the Australian dollar against the package currencies against which the dollar needs to be valued, the situation for Australia is serious indeed. If one compares the balance of trade now as against the position 12 months ago, one sees that there has been a continued deterioration. Indeed, in the balance on current account as at the end of October 1985 the Statistician's figures show that the net debit was $5,000m against less than $4,000m 12 months before. In other words, not only have we month by month a chronic adverse balance of payments, but the position is increasing at a rate which imposes an enourmous burden on the whole economy. In that climate the Government has introduced a tax package that will add further to costs. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics has already told farmers that they can expect their terms of trade to decline by about 26 per cent this year. While given devaluation there might be some slight improvement on that figure, without any doubt right throughout Australia there are many who progressively regard the burden of trying to marry their expected returns against their prospective costs in a very pessimistic fashion. Only yesterday the retiring Chairman of Elders-IXL Ltd, perhaps the doyen of Australian businessmen, Sir Ian McLennan, commented: It is time that this country realised (and in particular the Government) that the degrading of our currency is only a temporary palliative. Our costs are increasing at a rate much greater than are those of our competitors and we are pricing ourselves out of overseas markets, and imports continue to mount. The recent 3.8 per cent increase in wages was a major mistake and can only make the case for abandoning the central wage pricing system almost unanswerable. Of course the 3.8 per cent increase does not stop at that. Total labour costs including wage on-costs such as accident insurance premiums, employer paid superannuation contributions and payroll tax escalate in line with wage increases. We would be unwise to think that the full inflationary impact of the 1985 devaluation of the Australian dollar has been absorbed. Now that we are in a further period of currency degradation, inflation will increase and interest rates, already astronomical, will also increase further. That is the climate, with a rising crisis in all the productive sectors. While Sir Ian predominantly in that address was turning to the problems of the whole economy, having a concern for the rural sector and the mining sector-the two industries with which he has been particularly associated-he knows full well how critical is the position for them. Yet these changes in the tax legislation will add further to the burdens of those involved in those two sectors. We know from the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) in the other place that he is pessimistic about the prospects of improvement in manufacturing in regard to import replacements. Not only has Australia a deteriorating balance of payments and a serious problem that affects producers in the three major wealth-generating areas of Australia, but there is pessimism about the future. There is a total inability on the part of the Government to realise that, unless it is prepared to provide for full discounting and to go back to the Australian Council of Trade Unions and renegotiate an accord mark III, the predicament for the future will be disastrous. Accordingly, to look at tax changes such as those the House has before it at the moment, which will add further to that burden, is nothing but idiocy. The Government should be withdrawing the whole of its tax package and considering whether there cannot be a fundamental and significant reduction of government expenditure. It is no use saying: `Oh, yes, we will meet the trilogy, and things are on course'. That does not generate a climate where adequate reductions in government sector spending have been achieved to enable a worthwhile reduction in personal income tax liability. Indeed, if we look at a number of the measures included in this package, costs specifically will be increased for those who are involved in industries that might be able to reduce that chronic balance of payments deficit to which I referred a moment ago. There is the removal of the immediate write-off of water conservation expenditure. That is something which as far as the coalition parties are concerned-certainly the National Party-would be an absolute disaster for a number of people who have been trying to remove the impact of salinity from their soil and also to improve the productivity of their holdings. There is no reason why that water conservation deduction should not be retained. Surely to goodness even the Government understands that Australia is the driest of all continents and that water conservation is a way by which we can encourage the individual to conserve better that rare resource. Surely the Government understands that water conservation is a way by which we can improve productivity and a way by which we can help to enhance national returns from the productive sector. There are other implications arising from the taxation package. I find the section on taxation deductibility for entertainment expenses absolutely incomprehensible, for the tourism industry is one of the industries which may well be able to contribute to our future. Unless there is some encouragement in regard to entertainment and unless there is some encouragement to try to preserve the quality and standards of hospitality and service, then even in the tourism industry there will be a deterrent which will reduce that industry's ability to offset the chronic balance of payments deficit to which I referred. In my view the circumstances applying to employment in the restaurant industry have perhaps been best set out by the BIS-Shrapnel Pty Ltd survey released only the other day. This paper, commissioned by the Australian Tourism Industry Association, showed that there are very serious and adverse economic costs resulting from the Government's decision to disallow all business entertainment expenses as tax deductions. The paper suggests that the result will be to reduce gross domestic product by $434m, to reduce employment in the economy by 18,600 persons and to reduce employment in the hospitality industry by 11,100 persons, and that the Government, above all that, has over-estimated the net gain to government revenue. BIS-Shrapnel suggests that the net gain would be only $79m, and not the $310m estimated by the Government. Business entertainment has long been widely recognised as a legitimate business expense. Surely it can be recognised by this Government that in the climate of the taxation package it has presented it is deterring the continued profitable operation of many restaurants which have provided such a highly competitive tourist environment and which have helped to improve revenues-at least in that sector. Behind the whole of the Government's approach seems to be the myopic concentration on a view that enhancing returns in the productive sector does not matter. I think it is worth while referring to the fact that in Canberra this week Mr Ian McLachlan, the President of the National Farmers Federation, commented about the tax system, saying: A taxation system should not present major disincentives to initiative, risk-taking and commitment to work. That is exactly what these tax changes do. If one cares to look at the Mining Industry News one sees that the competitiveness of that industry is seen to be at stake as a result of decisions taken by the Government in relation to housing and travel benefits provided to mining industry employees in remote areas. As far as the farming community is concerned, we all know that its position is at stake. Traditionally benefits have been provided in that industry. Such benefits have not been written into awards but have been part of the customary practice of the rural sector. It has been the practice to provide, for example, housing, milk and meat and often to provide electricity and, whenever the telephone works, to provide telephone facilities as well. All those benefits are now to be taxed to the employer's account. That is both wrong in principle and wrong in practice; it is hurtful in its impact. For the mining, pastoral and tourism industries the net result of the tax package now before us is such that it will add to the costs of production, reduce profitability and deny the ability of very significant sectors of the economy to offset that chronic balance of payments deficit to which I referred when I commenced to speak. Unless there can be a way given to those involved in the productive sector to operate profitably, the future of the economy of this whole nation will be at risk. For the sake of short term wage gains we are to have rigid adherence to the prices and incomes accord mark II which was negotiated without discounting of the present devaluation of the Australian dollar. Unless that can be reopened, I believe the circumstances for the rural, mining, restaurant and tourism sectors will be adverse. It is in that climate that the National Party is opposed to elements of the package before us. It believes that the Treasurer has made a total mess of the compromise represented by the whole of the tax package; that in the event of his not being prepared to withdraw the whole he should certainly continue to provide a 100 per cent write-off for works in water conservation and certainly should consider significant amendment to that part of this package which relates to the non-deductibility of entertainment expenses. Mr LEE(Dobell)(12.26) —It is a pleasure to follow the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) in this debate on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) and cognate Bills. First of all I would like to turn the spotlight on the performance of the Opposition in government from 1975 to 1983. Mr Nehl —An excellent performance. Mr LEE —Let us look at that performance. I certainly would not describe it as excellent. I have always thought that the right honourable member for New England typified the sort of diligent and honest sort of person that the Liberal and National parties can throw up. Mr Simmons —That is why they lost office. Mr LEE —As the honourable member for Calare said, that is why they lost office. Mr Barry Jones —He finds himself part of the Left of the party. Mr LEE —That is right. The Liberal and National parties were elected in 1975 on the platform of providing income tax cuts and full tax indexation. What did they deliver? In 1978 the coalition increased income tax. That increase was handed down by honest John, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), in the guise of a 1.5 per cent temporary tax surcharge. Honourable members opposite when in government promised tax cuts but when they were called on to deliver they increased taxes. Not only did honourable members opposite levy a 1.5 per cent temporary income tax surcharge; they backdated it from Budget night to 1 July. Whereas honourable members opposite come in here and oppose our retrospective legislation to recover taxes from the bottom of the harbour, in government they levied a retrospective income tax increase on every Australian pay as you earn taxpayer. Honourable members opposite are a disgrace. In the following year the temporary income tax surcharge was kept in force and was raised to 2.57 per cent. Honourable members opposite totally abandoned their promise of indexation of the income tax scales. That is the record of honourable members opposite when in government. It is a record of broken promises and tax increases. Honourable members opposite are a bunch of frauds; their policies are phoney. In contrast, the tax proposals introduced by our Treasurer (Mr Keating) indicate that this Government is the first government since the Second World War to have sought to introduce genuine tax reform. No issue excites the imagination like tax reform, as all of us on this side of the House have learned. Every Australian pays tax. All Australians are concerned that any changes in the tax regime do not disadvantage them. Machiavelli gave advice to any leader seeking to introduce reform. He said in his book The Prince: And one has to reflect that there is nothing more difficult to handle nor more doubtful of success nor more dangerous to conduct than to make oneself the leader in introducing a new order of things. Mr Barry Jones —That is certainly true. Mr LEE —Yes, that is certainly true. Machiavelli continued: For the man who introduces it has for enemies all those who do well out of the old order and has lukewarm supporters in all those who will do well out of the new order. I thank Gough Whitlam for drawing this quote to my attention in his excellent book The Whit- lam Government 1972-1975. I support the Treasurer's proposals to remove the rorts, ramps and inequalities from the Australian taxation system. I condemn the Liberal and National parties for defending, in the words of Machiavelli, `all those who do well out of the old order'. The current tax system was falling apart at the seams when we were elected to government in March 1983. The extent of the haemorrhaging is demonstrated by the following figures: In 1954-55, 53 per cent of individual tax receipts were paid by those earning 1.6 times average weekly earnings. If the taxation system had remained fair and equitable, one would expect that the percentage paid by these high income earners-that is, those earning more than 1.6 times the average weekly earnings-would have remained the same. Yet when we look at the figures, we find that today those earning 1.6 times average weekly earnings or more pay only 23 per cent of tax receipts. In 1954-55 high income earners paid the majority of income tax. Today, they pay less than a quarter. Mr Barry Jones —And the higher you go the more inverse the relationship. Mr LEE —That is correct. Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table which was produced in the Government's Tax White Paper in June 1985. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Selection of individual returns with extensive use of tax shelters, 1982-83 income year (a) Grade of net income before losses and/or film industry deduction No. of taxpayers Income before losses Primary production losses Rent losses Other losses Film industry deductions Income after losses/ deductions Tax saving Average tax saving $ $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $ Less than 150 000... 9 1 078.4 11.7 557.8 96.9 - 411.9 367.5 40 838 150 000-199 999... 12 2 169.3 879.5 557.7 13.4 15.0 703.7 878.7 73 223 200 000-249 999... 12 2 734.5 1 042.4 274.9 12.5 - 1 404.7 797.9 66 490 250 000-299 999... 10 2 745.2 1 320.3 - - 225.0 1 199.9 927.2 92 720 300 000-399 999... 11 3 856.8 1 053.8 181.4 40.2 292.5 2 289.0 940.7 85 519 400 000-499 999... 6 2 689.4 842.9 181.9 - 464.3 1 333.3 813.7 135 612 500 000-999 999... 10 6 743.4 1 979.5 166.8 - 1 544.0 3 053.1 2 214.2 221 422 1 000 000 and over... 4 5 694.6 1 972.2 - 90.0 641.8 2 990.6 1 622.4 405 602 Total... 74 27 711.6 9 102.4 1 787.5 253.0 3 182.6 13 386.1 8 562.3 Average for all 74 taxpayers... 374.5 123.0 24.2 3.4 43.0 180.9 115.7 (a) The 74 returns covered in this table are drawn from a sample of 1982-83 returns. Source: Australian Tax Office as quoted in Tax White Paper, June 1985. Mr LEE —I thank the House. This table was compiled by the Australian Taxation Office. It selected the returns of 74 taxpayers in the high income brackets. As the table shows, the average income of those 74 Australians in 1982-83 was $375,000. Yet through the use of tax shelters such as primary production losses, negative gearing, investments in films and other areas, these people with an average income of $375,000 on average obtained a tax shelter of $115,000 each. Mr Martin —What a rort. Mr LEE —What a rort, that is correct. High income earners are more likely to receive part of their salary tax free in the form of fringe benefits, such as a company car for personal use, an expense account for private entertainment, or a free holiday provided by the employer. Mr Maher —Club memberships. Mr LEE —Yes, and club memberships. Under the existing taxation rules, high income earners can choose to negatively gear their properties. High income earners can choose to earn tax free capital gains. High income earners can choose to establish an artificial loss on a farm, in the grand tradition of the Pitt Street farmers whom the members in cockies corner do so well in seeking to represent and protect. High income earners can also choose to invest in films and in uneconomic and artificial irrigation schemes. The average wage earner receives none of these advantages. The average wage earner does not receive these tax free fringe benefits. He must pay tax on all of his income. All employees receive group certificates at the end of the financial year. The group certificate of the high income earner who receives fringe benefits does not include all of that income which he has received from the employer in the form of tax free fringe benefits. However, average wage and salary earners must pay more tax because these high income earners fail to pay their fair share. This Government, under this Treasurer, is seeking to make everyone pay his fair share of tax. Many business lobby groups have loudly expressed their opposition to the Treasurer's proposals. I quote from an excellent article in the Sydney Morning Herald, which is not traditionally a great supporter of the Australian Labor Party, written by the Herald's economics editor, Mr Ross Gittins. Mr Gittins, while always entertaining, does not hesitate to support or condemn the policies of the Government and the Opposition as he sees fit. The article, which appeared in the 25 September edition, is headlined: `Business whingeing errs on side of exaggeration'. Ross Gittins said: If you believed what some businessmen are saying, you'd be convinced that the tax package will bring about the end of civilisation as we know it. According to Mr Les Rodgers, national president of the Restaurant and Catering Association, the removal of tax deductibility for entertainment expenses will close more than 7,000 restaurants within the next six months, causing more than 10,500 jobs to be lost. According to Sir Frank Moore, chairman of the Australian Tourism Industry Association, the package is a `vicious, anti-business package of disincentives to investment, development and growth'. According to Mr Alex Brown, executive director of the Australian Automobile Dealers' Association, the tax on company cars will permanently reduce car sales by 50,000 a year, costing 12,000 jobs in the motor industry. . . . . According to Mr Chris Scott, president of the Real Estate Institute of NSW, `the 19th of September, 1985 will go down as Doomsday for tenants and ratepayers'. Mr Gittins continued: You get the picture. Big business says that big business is bearing the brunt of the tax package; small business says that small business is. We all hate paying tax, but what gets me is the way businessmen never admit to a concern for their own pockets. Their complaints are invariably couched in terms of concern for what the tax changes will do to others: employees, customers, renters, the economy. It's never making a quid, it's always `initiative' and `enterprise'. I have a rule-- Again I stress that this is Mr Gittins speaking-- that whenever I hear a businessman rabbiting on about `the disincentive to enterprise' I always ask myself: What lurk has this bloke been working? But if you were naive enough to believe all the whingeing by business, it would give you a very distorted picture of the tax reform package and what it is likely to do to the economy. . . . . When the Government lays down a certain tax system, the economy adjusts to fit that system. People seeking to minimise the tax they pay respond to the incentives and disincentives the system creates; they find the loopholes and exploit them. . . . . Since the Government will not make a `profit' out of the tax package, there is no reason why the private sector should make a loss. Money which no longer flows to the restaurant and motor industries will flow to other industries. Jobs which are lost in some industries should be offset by jobs which are created in other industries. That is the comment of an independent commentator, Mr Ross Gittins, who is not known as a great supporter of this Government. He is a fair commentator who supports us sometimes and condemns us on other occasions. A labourer, a tradesman or a clerk who lives in my electorate must pay for all of his own lunches. He is not able to claim these meals as a tax deduction against his annual income tax return. It is blatantly unfair for business executives and senior public servants to be able to claim entertainment expenses as a tax deduction. It is blatantly unfair to expect average wage and salary earners to pay half the cost of the long lunches and long dinners of these people. It is a disgrace that the Opposition in this Parliament should act as the defender of the old order in opposing these measures. It is a disgrace that the Opposition hypocritically supports our income tax cuts while opposing the very measures which will raise the revenue to give average Australian families the income tax cuts they deserve and which the Liberal and National parties often promised but could never deliver. Mr HODGES(Petrie)(12.37) —In entering this cognate debate on six Bills it had been my intention originally to speak in particular about the Social Security (Poverty Traps Reduction) Bill. In view of the serious nature of the economy and the fact that most of these Bills concern the economy, I will address my remarks in the broader sense to the question of the economy of this nation. I do not say that the matters contained in the Social Security (Poverty Traps Reduction) Bill are unimportant. Indeed, they are very important measures and I support them. I am a little surprised that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) is not in the chamber for the duration of this debate. I thought he would have been glued to his seat, listening to all the speakers in the debate, in the hope that he might be able to modify his strategy to improve the Australian economy. The affable Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) has been at the table and now the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) is at the table. One might ask: Where is the Treasurer? Mr John Brown —I am affable. Mr HODGES —I agree that the Minister is affable. He is not very effective, but he is affable. We had the spectacle when this Government first came to power of an economic summit. We have more recently had a tax summit, and of course, we have the consensus government that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has perpetrated on the Australian nation. Consensus government sounds fine, but it indicates that the Government does not know where it is heading. The people elected the Hawke Government to govern. Seeking consensus is really a sign of great weakness, not strength, as some would have us believe, by giving people the feeling that they are being consulted. There is nothing new in the idea of consensus government. It may be new in modern Australia, but it has been tried and proven a failure in many other countries. All of the major economic indicators, with the exception of those relating to employment, paint a gloomy picture; and even the employment figures are somewhat suspect. The Government has very cunningly shifted debate from the level of unemployment to the number of jobs created. If we add on the number of jobs that are currently being undertaken by people in make-work schemes to the number of people unemployed, the picture is not so rosy. We still have hundreds of thousands of Australians out of work. Interest rates have blown through the roof. Australia now has the highest real interest rate that it has had for half a century. I turn to the broken promises of this Hawke socialist Government. We were told towards the end of last year-just prior to the December election-that interest rates would fall. We were also told that petrol prices would fall. Interest rates have risen and petrol prices have risen. Let us not forget that both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have misled and deceived the Australian nation in statements made not only prior to the December 1984 election but also earlier this year. They claimed that interest rates would fall when, indeed, they have gone up. Housing loan interest rates have risen. They are now at a ceiling of 13 1/2 per cent. Higher home repayments are hurting average Australian families. I invite members of the Government to spend an hour or two door knocking in their electorates and to ask the home owners and buyers-people with interest mortgage payments to be met each month-how their home loans and repayments are going. They would get a shock. They should talk to some of the people in suburbs in my electorate such as Wavell Heights, Aspley, Kippa-Ring and Scarborough. Right across my electorate people are deeply concerned at the increase in home loan repayments. So much for the statements of the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) that housing interest rates would drop. We now have the spectacle of funds for housing loans drying up. The great Australian dream of home ownership will remain just that-a dream. The Australian dollar has fallen to an alarming level against all currencies. The international markets have no faith in Australia-they have no faith in Hawke, Keating and this socialist Government. Our balance of payments is in a shocking state. The Government's strategy and claim that imports would slow down and exports would increase now that our dollar has weakened is in a shambles. It is now nine months since the Australian dollar took a major tumble from being worth US90c to under US70c; yet our balance of payments has worsened in recent months. Everyone in this nation knows that the trade unions are running the country. Even the dogs are barking. The Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) and, indeed, all Ministers have made great play about there being fewer strikes and fewer days lost through industrial unrest. I submit to the House and to the nation that when fewer days are lost through industrial unrest it clearly signals that the unions are getting their own way. It is nothing to boast about; it is a case of the unions getting their own way. Mr John Brown —Which way do you want it? Mr HODGES —We do not want industrial unrest, but we do want the nation's economy to improve; in other words, we want both. We do not want unions dictating to this Government, as they are now doing, what should happen to the economy. Crean and Kelty are dictating the terms. We have had an accord mark one. We now have an accord mark two, and I predict that within the next few weeks we will have an accord mark three. The Government's support for the 3.8 per cent wage flow-on is nothing short of scandalous. It is inflationary. It makes us less competitive and it has helped in the decline of our dollar. Indeed, it is an unmitigated disaster. Our inflation rate is up to 8 or 9 per cent. Comparing that with the 10 per cent inflation rate under the previous Government it all sounds very fine to say: `We have got below the Fraser Government's inflation rate'. But the yardstick is not the inflation rate and the economy under the previous Government; it is the inflation rate of other countries. Our major trading partners are in the 3 to 4 per cent inflation rate bracket. This Government has failed to contain inflation and that is harming our competitiveness in our bid to improve our export earnings. Let me look at our deficits over the past three years of this Hawke Government, because they have gone through the roof. The deficits in the last three years total almost $20 billion. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 106A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour when the honourable member for Petrie will have leave to continue his remarks. Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(12.45) —I wish to discuss in this grievance debate the state of the nation. I believe that Australia today needs leadership and a sense of direction which it is not getting from the present Government. We are in a state of complete uncertainty. Inflation is rocketing up, the dollar is zooming down, and interest rates are going through the roof. The balance of payments is in a state of crisis and we are heading for an enormous deficit-a government out of control. Unions are holding the nation to ransom. The unions are, in fact, out of control. Melbourne is under siege in the building industry, hospitals, transport, police, car factories, and the Dollar Sweets dispute. The Government lacks a clear direction. We are not getting leadership. There is no confidence in the Government's ability to make decisions and stick to them. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) seems to waver on every issue daily. Let us look at taxation. He initially said in relation to the taxation package that he was prepared to be flexible. Now he has indicated that the package will go ahead as originally planned. There have obviously been differences between the Prime Minister and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Treasurer has triumphed over the Prime Minister. But this does enormous harm in the community. Let us look at the tax package. We have had some legislation introduced. We have had the wholesale sales tax legislation. The lack of deduction of entertainment expenses legislation is currently being debated. But the major parts of the tax package, the foreign tax credit, the cash tax company imputation system, the so-called reduction in company tax legislation-none of that has been introduced to the House. The community does not know where it stands in relation to the major portions of the tax package. Accountants and lawyers are unable to advise their clients. Those individuals conducting businesses are unable to plan their tax affairs because they do not know what the legislation will be; and if individuals change their tax arrangements, there is no certainty that those changes will accord with the law that is ultimately introduced. It is a scandalous state of affairs. Here we have a government governing by announcement and by decree, without any legislation being introduced into the House-because all the tax package arrangements date from 19 September. There is complete uncertainty; uncertainty abounds. It is conduct similar to that of a communist or a fascist dictatorship. Let us look at the accord. What is happening under the accord? Is the Government going to renegotiate it with the unions? Will they allow for discounting of wages to take account of the devaluation of the Australian dollar? The community needs and demands, and is entitled to, certainty and a sense of direction from this Government. The accord, which is the so-called centrepiece of the Government's strategy, is in tatters. It is leading Australia down the drain. We have a government that does not know where it is going, trying to put on a confident front but scared stiff underneath because it does not know how things are going or what will be the result of its economic policy. Chaos is ahead. The Government lacks confidence; it is insecure and unable to provide leadership. As I have said, the tax package creates enormous uncertainty in the community. We do not know whether the Government will negotiate with the Opposition. One day it says that it will; the next day it says it will not. What will it say tomorrow? We have no idea. We absolutely cannot trust it. There is no certainty. Look at what interest rates are doing to the community. If anything creates uncertainty for families, home owners, home buyers and small businesses, it is our rocketing interest rates. The overdraft rate is something over 19 per cent today, and God knows what it will be tomorrow. We are heading for New Zealand-type figures of 25 per cent. How can small businesses manage? How can they make profits-so essential for further growth, so essential for employment-to enable them to employ people? How can investors invest in new firms to create new jobs? They cannot do so because of the inhibiting effects of record high interest rates. How can home owners manage? A home owner with a $50,000 mortgage has got to pay, I think, an extra $75 a month because of the recent increases; but that is only the mortgage repayment. Home owners will have a cocktail arrangement. They will have further loans from another finance institution, and those will add an even greater burden to that $75 a month-perhaps another $25, $30 or $40 a month, depending on how much they have borrowed. Mr Jull —Families will be forced out of their homes. Mr SHIPTON —So families are under great threat. My honourable friend interjects: `Families will be forced out of their homes'. That is the state of affairs that we have today under this present Government, which is providing no leadership. Instead of encouraging individual enterprise and initiative, this Government is encouraging mediocrity. By making the accord the centrepiece and a shrine of its industrial and economic policies, it is shutting out the needs of business, particularly small business, and it is demanding that small and medium-size firms all over Australia have more and more burdens placed upon them. There are the tax package burdens and the financial burdens of high interest rates; but there are also overwhelming administrative burdens, because employers are now virtually becoming responsible for the accuracy of employees' tax returns and have more and more paper work to complete day by day. These burdens also extend to trying to restrict the activities of firms in the market-place. The trade practices legislation, rushed through this House this week, places enormous extra burdens on the small firm. It also applies to professionals-architects, engineers, lawyers, accountants, doctors, dentists and chemists. All those professionals are now caught and have had their standard of duty to their customers suddenly changed in the Trade Practices Act, without consultation and without time for consultation. Professions are under a squeeze by this Government, and the Trade Practices Act amendment affects the small businesses of those professionals, because the Government is not only encouraging unions to make all professionals belong to unions, but, on the other hand, it is squeezing them through the taxation system. It is not only squeezing them through the tax package; by interpretations of the current taxation Act, independent contractors-whether they are draughtsmen, architects, designers, or whatever-are being forced to become employees because the Government does not want enterprise and individuals doing their own thing, to invest- Mr Cadman —Stifling initiative. Mr SHIPTON —Stifling initiative, stifling investment, stifling the small firm and the individual who wants to have a go. People running businesses are asking: `Why should we bother risking our capital? Why should we bother investing in a firm? Why should we put up with the long hours and the hard work, to the detriment of family life? Why should we take on the stress and responsibility of running a business, only to be weighed down with onerous government dictates, higher and higher taxation, higher and higher burdens, unreasonable union demands, and a wage system dictated to us by the trade union movement through the accord that gives us extra costs that we are unable to pass on to our customers?' This Government, led by the Prime Minister and orchestrated by Treasurer Keating, has mounted and is engaging in a tax assault on the business community. It is an assault that will make many owners and managers of small businesses rethink their future. It is reported in the November issue of Your Business that many small business operators and entrepreneurs believe that wealth creation incentive for the private sector has all but been cut. There is no incentive left in Australia for investment-not even with the chemists, in the professions, or in the milk-bars of this land-because there is no incentive for anyone to start a business. Who would want to buy a business? Look at what loss of tax deductibility for entertainment expenses has done to the restaurant industry and to its suppliers, to the butchers and the greengrocers and such firms. There is an orchestrated attack by this Government on enterprise, initiative, entrepreneurship, and the small business. Small business is being strangled by the actions of this Government, and that means that there will be a tragedy for this nation, because small business is the only sector of the economy that would provide the economy with the opportunity to generate jobs, and to generate jobs for all those young people who will be leaving school in the next few weeks. If they are to have job opportunities, such jobs will arise in the small and medium-size business sector. It is only by creating the right climate and having economic policies that encourage the growth of the small firm that we shall get jobs for those school leavers. This Government does not understand that and does not want to do anything about that. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(12.56) —I wish to bring to the attention of the people of Australia the plight of over 800 residents of the Frankston Baptist Centre and the Merimna Village at Nerang, Queensland, and the Monarto Village at Murray Bridge, South Australia. These retirement villages have been run by Bob Payne, the minister of the Full Blessing Church and chairman of the Frankston Baptist Centre. He is also the Victorian co-ordinator of the Festival of Light and, I believe, he has also claimed to be a prophet of God. In 1973 the Full Blessing Church pioneered resident funded retirement villages. The concept of these types of retirement villages appears at first to be excellent. The Full Blessing Church offered total care and offered the residents peace of mind in extremely pleasant surroundings. Let me read a part of the advertising material: Security, serenity and friendship are the three main factors of a happy retirement and they are built into the Monarto Village-which is similar to the renowned Manning Village in Victoria . . . The years immediately following retirement are often the most productive, creative and exciting years and a total care retirement village really caters for this, but the true test of any retirement village is `Will I have continuing peace of mind as the years pass by?' Bob Payne had a vision, a vision which stated that he would: Promote a great church; proclaim the gospel of total prosperity; possess the land for God; promise and present total care; promulgate Christian influence, through education, communication, recreation, social and community care facilities and the election and influencing of local councillors and State and Federal parliamentarians; provide work and amass wealth-the sanctity of Christian work and the need for people to work hard and honestly cannot be stressed too strongly nor can the necessity to obtain and distribute vast amounts of finance for gospel outreach and works of mercy and grace. To this end jobs will be created and profits achieved. The vision splendid has turned into a nightmare for the hundreds of residents cheated of their hard-earned money. The Full Blessing Church has mortgaged the units of these people and is in debt to the Commonwealth Bank and its subsidiaries to an amount of $17.4m as at August 1985, with interest accruing at $1.7m per half year. Unsecured creditors are owed approximately $2.5m. This adds up to $19.97m, and it does not take into account the equity of the residents of the villages, which is approximately another $20m. The residents, whose average age is 77 and who retired there for peace and security, are shattered. Because the village appeared to be run by the Baptist Church, many believed that their investment of thousands of dollars would be completely safe and secure. The Baptist Union of Victoria has no direct connection with the Frankston Baptist Centre. In all promotional material the word `Baptist' is used in the text. I am dismayed that the residents have the one thing that is most precious in later life threatened: That is, their security. Bob Payne and the directors of the Full Blessing Church have gambled away, on risky land deals and investments, the residents' hard-earned money. These are the people who went through the Great Depression, fought and protected Australia in the Great Wars and lost loved ones so as to give us the opportunity to live in a democratic and free country. He has squandered their money, he has wasted the inheritance of their children and has nearly broken their hearts. Recently Bob Payne received money from the Federal Government for the care of dementia patients. This money has also gone. Even the sick and infirm have been cheated. Bob Payne has been an advocate of free enterprise, and a strong supporter and financial backer of the policies of the Liberal and National parties as well as Senate candidates for the Festival of Light. What we are seeing at Frankston is the ultimate example of a system based on greed and avarice. It is capitalism at its ugliest. He has, without concern or scruples, used people's money for himself, and by the power of his tongue he has convinced these people that his integrity was unquestionable. Bob Payne has used the residents' money to amass wealth. Wealth for whom? It is not for the residents of the village; not for those who toiled by their hands constructing more units for him; not for those supplying goods and services. It was not amassing wealth for the glory of God, as he claims, but to give credence to the delusion of grandeur which completely engulfs him, and to support an ego which knows no bounds. My Labor colleagues and I, and others within the community who do not agree with Bob Payne's views, have had to endure attacks on our religious, political, patriotic and moral standards from this man and his supporters. Recently he held a free enterprise dinner at which a definition of the word `integrity' was given. Bob Payne stated that integrity was `the wholesome and sound uprightness arising from true honesty and old-fashioned trustworthiness'. Integrity is the key word in this most distressing affair. He and his fellow directors have lacked integrity. They have lacked honesty. They have lacked moral responsibility. I therefore call on the Victorian Attorney-General to investigate this company to ascertain whether fraud has been perpetrated. I have many questions to ask. Where has the money gone? Has the company traded while it was insolvent? What part has a Mr Yates played in the financial collapse of this village? Is Bob Payne about to leave Australia on an overseas visit? If he goes overseas, would the other directors be prepared to run the village and do they have the skills? What was the amount of salary and/or fees paid to him? Were there any other emoluments or benefits? Were relatives of Mr Payne also employed by the Full Blessing Church, and how many? What qualifications did they have? Who are the directors of the Full Blessing Church? How were they appointed? What are their qualifications? How many bankers has the Full Blessing Church had in the last five years? Why did the Commonwealth Bank loan this money? Who authorised the loan? Did previous bankers advise the Full Blessing Church that it was in financial difficulties, or otherwise warn of potential financial troubles? Has Mr Payne considered the moral implications of accepting money during the past year from elderly people for units which included guaranteed repayments of equity, which he knew he had little chance of fulfilment? Has any stamp duty been paid by the Frankston Baptist Centre on lease transactions? What has happened to the money collected for the residents' burial fund? Have nursing staff who have been sacked been promised their holiday pay and other moneys in IOUs? Why is the manager of the Merimna Village telling residents that everything is all right when this is not the fact? How much of residents' money was put into half-page political advertisements, and how much was given to political campaigns for council, State and Federal elections? Who received this money? These are only a very few of the many questions I would like answered. There are many more to come out and there is much more to this story, which I am certain will be told in the next few years. Mr Reith —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. This is a vicious personal attack which makes no contribution to the difficulties of-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) — Order! The honourable member knows that that is not an appropriate point of order. Mr CHYNOWETH —The honourable member is wasting my time, Mr Deputy Speaker. I take this opportunity to publicly thank the residents of Baxter Village for the courage and resolution they have shown during this stressful period of their lives. I assure all of them that, whatever happens, they have my complete support in making certain that their lifetime leases will be honoured and secured. I place that on notice so that any prospective purchaser will know exactly how I feel and will know of my determination to make certain that residents' tenancies are protected. I will finish with the following proverb for consideration: `He that maketh haste to be rich shall not be innocent'. Mr JULL(Fadden)(1.05) —Next Tuesday some thousands of young Australians will be converging on Canberra to stage a demonstration outside Parliament House. They are members of the restaurant and catering industry who will be protesting against the current proposals the Government has under consideration as part of the tax package. I come before the House today to appeal to the Government to consider the moves that they are making and the effect that they will have on that industry. It is appropriate that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) is in the House today because the whole future of the industry that he has been promoting so well is well under threat with the provisions that are presently before this Government. These thousands of young people are not the people who own restaurants. They are not the people who own the catering businesses. They are, in fact, the hands-on operators of this particular industry-one of the fastest growing industries in Australia. In my own State of Queensland, over the last five years no fewer than 93,500 new jobs have been created in the tourism and hospitality industry. Around Australia at the moment we are going through the process of the graduation ceremonies from the colleges of catering and hospitality services. We are now faced with a situation where literally hundreds and hundreds of young graduates, both full time and part time, who have decided to make a career in this industry, are facing the prospect of no jobs next year. It is all very well for the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to come into this House and to say, `They will find alternative employment'. I wonder just what the training that is given to a chef has to do with another job that may be available, in, say, the Department of Social Security, because there is no relevance. It would seem to me to be very shortsighted indeed that the Government has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, in both the Commonwealth and the State spheres, in the last few years-rightly-promoting these colleges of hospitality and tourism only to see that good work shot to pieces; and indeed, it is being shot to pieces. In this House in recent hours, we have heard all sorts of figures quoted as to what the effect is going to be, or has been so far, on the restaurant and the hospitality industries. I think it is worthy to note that the latest figures that have just come out, in recent hours, from Howarth and Howarth show that, in fact, in the restaurant industry around Australia at the moment, turnover is down some 35 per cent. The amount of business done on credit cards around Australia is down 42 per cent. In my own State alone, 2,000 jobs, both full time and part time, in the restaurant and hospitality industry alone, have already gone and that is even taking into account the Jupiter's Casino on the Gold Coast, started last night, and that employs 1,200 people. If those 1,200 people had not been employed in Jupiter's Casino, what would the situation have been in the Queensland hospitality industry? In Victoria, some 3,000 jobs are going, and it is no wonder that the young people of this industry-and it is basically a young people's industry-are going to come to Canberra in their hundreds and their thousands next week to try to sheet home this particular message to the Government. From Queensland alone on Tuesday, 10 bus-loads will be coming to Canberra for this particular demonstration. Yet when we debate and talk about this topic of what is happening in the restaurant and hospitality industry, we really do not look much further than that particular industry, and we should see the long term effects on all areas of the Australian economy. The wine industry is often up for debate in this House. That industry is under attack as well. It is a fact that about 40 per cent of Australia's premium wines are sold through restaurants. The consumption of premium wines in restaurants is down about 36 per cent at the moment. The difficulty with that industry is that there is such a price war going on, in terms of bulk wine sales, that the little profit that is in that industry is coming only from quality wines, and already we are seeing those sales shot to pieces. The Brisbane markets at Rocklea are already seeing the effect with the lack of purchases from the restaurant and hospitality industry. Indeed, premium fruit and vegetables are being subject to this particular attack, and that is going to have a very great effect on the small crop growers in your electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker, because the Redlands area of Queensland supplies a lot of those top quality fruit and vegetable products for the restaurants. Another area that is really starting to feel the pinch is the laundry area. Those employed in the laundry businesses of Canberra will be on the front lawns of Parliament House next Tuesday protesting as well. So the list goes on. The fishing industry is starting to feel the effect, and already we have seen evidence that the trend has gone away from the premium quality fish, primarily from North Queensland and the Northern Territory, For example, barramundi sales are down, and a great deal of hardship is being felt in that particular section of the industry as well. One really wonders just what the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has in mind. The other area that I wish the Treasurer would consider is: What effect will these measures have on Christmas this year? The catering industry tells me that around Australia, literally dozens and dozens of Christmas parties for both clients and staff are being cancelled. In fact, that is not going to be terribly pleasant news for so many of the people who are employed by big sections of industry now. Mr Shipton —Taking the fun out of Christmas. Mr JULL —One could well say that, and one would wonder why the Treasurer, Mr Keating, dislikes the whole spirit of Christmas. We have that situation on our books at the moment. Wine is down; we have fruit and vegetables down; we have the laundry industry down; we have seafood down-and so the list goes on. I just wonder, while we have this industry, which has been growing so quickly and trying to attract the best of our young workers to its ranks, why all of a sudden the Government has decided to stop it in its tracks when it is, indeed, one of the few industries in Australia that have the capacity to give long term employment to young Australians. I mentioned that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism was in the House, and I know what an intricate part of the tourist industry hospitality and catering are. When we see the tremendous moves that have been made in that area in recent years, especially to attract international visitors, we must make sure that our infrastructure is there and proper to serve those international visitors. While it has been argued in this place that, indeed, in the tourist areas of Australia the non-tax deductibility of the business lunch will not have much effect on that industry, what has failed to be realised is that the bulk of Australia's tourism, in actual fact, happens in the capital cities, and the capital cities of Australia are, indeed, big magnets to overseas visitors. When one looks at the figures of what is coming out of North America, out of Germany, and out of Japan, those big spending areas of the world, one sees that, obviously, part of people's holiday or their business trip to Australia is to go to restaurants and to sample the local cuisine. Indeed, what worries me is that when they come here, so many of those top line establishments that were catering for that international trade may not be there in their present form or, indeed, in a highly diluted form. Already, in my own city of Brisbane, we have had one example where the longest established silver service restaurant in that city just last week closed its doors after more than 30 years of trading. I refer to the Camelia Restaurant, which was a very high class restaurant which had international appeal and which attracted visitors from not only Brisbane but, indeed, all over the State and Australia, and from overseas. That has now been converted to a bistro and the owners have obviously had to go for the cheap end of the market. But there, in the heart of Brisbane, was one big tourist attraction that unfortunately is no more, and this particular attitude is being reflected around Australia. One can only hope that the Government will see the error of its ways, and that it will not deprive so many of our young people graduating from our hospitality colleges and our tourism colleges, which only this week received awards for their contribution to the tourist industry. We would hope that those young graduates will not be thrown on the scrap heap next year after their graduation. On behalf of the young people of Australia looking for jobs in that particular industry, I appeal to the Government to soon change its attitude to this whole business of tax deductibility for business lunches. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! Before calling the honourable member for Ballarat, I would just remind honourable members that, while the grievance debate is understandably a very far reaching and wide ranging debate, members should be careful that they do not breach standing order 163, which provides that matters on the Notice Paper must not be anticipated by another matter contained in a less effective form of proceedings. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat)(1.15) —Today I want to talk about a tragedy-a tragedy that affects this nation and that of South Africa. The tragedy occurs because the Opposition is walking out of the previous bipartisan policy towards South Africa. This is terribly disheartening for non-white South Africans seeking help and encouragement not only to survive in but to change this oppressive system. It is also an affront to those white South Africans who seek justice for their non-white brothers and sisters. It is also damaging to Australia's interests in Africa, in general, and also within the commonwealth of nations. The Fraser Government's policy was established with the support of the Australian Labor Party. It was established because, in Malcolm Fraser's own words just before the 1981 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting: `Apartheid is utterly repugnant'. The policy gave support for a United Nations arms embargo against South Africa and supported a sports embargo, as agreed to under the Gleneagles agreement. This bipartisan policy on a sports embargo was especially important because it imposed particular pressure on South Africans. Under the Fraser Government policy, the Government, firstly, opposed entry into Australia of South African teams and individuals competing as South African representatives; secondly, it discouraged representative Australian teams or individuals from competing in South Africa or overseas if South Africa was taking part; and, thirdly, it denied visas to West Indian, English and Sri Lankan cricketers who toured South Africa in 1983. Mr Fraser told the Parliament on 4 July 1981 that it was `terribly important' to maintain this bipartisan approach `for reasons that all honourable members would understand'. Unfortunately, that was probably a false assumption. As the Australian Financial Review pointed out on 1 May 1984, this policy `gained respect for Australia throughout the world except from the South African Government and its sympathisers'. But the coalition has now abandoned the bipartisan approach. For example, in February 1984 the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), the then Opposition spokesman on Foreign Affairs, criticised the Government's policy as being too tough, and in April 1984 the Liberal Party policy that was unveiled was seen by all observers to have become significantly softer on apartheid. In August 1984 the National Party unveiled its policy and called for the development of greater contact with South Africa and an end to sports embargos. The comments of the honourable member for Warringah, which were critical of government policy, were seized upon by South African observers. As an example, the Cape Town Argus of 29 February 1984 said that it was evidence of `a fundamental shift in Australian attitudes' that the `bipartisan attitude of Australia's major political parties towards South Africa is crumbling' and that the honourable member for Warringah had `given a strong hint that the Opposition will develop a more accommodating policy towards South Africa'. Sure enough, the Liberal Party policy that was issued in August was seen by all observers and criticised on all sides as retreating from the normal, decent standards established under Malcolm Fraser. The new Liberal Party policy, among other things, refused to condemn apartheid and called for a move away from the confrontation policy towards the apartheid regime. This was immediately welcomed by the South African Embassy on 30 April 1984 which said that the new Liberal policy `indicated a change in approach to contact with South Africa'. It said that the Opposition had clearly indicated that `they would be adopting a more realistic approach to the South African situation by recognising the progress that is being made in regard to internal reform within South Africa'. We have seen very little of that. It expressed its attitude towards the new policy by saying: `This is a welcome development'. But the policy shift was also immediately condemned by commentators. The Age of 2 May 1984 said that it was a `deliberate softening of the Fraser Government's South African stance'. The Sydney Morning Herald of 1 May 1984 said that the Opposition `has moved away from the tough anti-apartheid stance adopted by the Fraser Government towards South Africa'. The Canberra Times of 2 May 1984 described the policy as `further evidence of a swing to the right by the coalition parties'. Russell Rollason, Executive Director of the Australian Council for Overseas Aid, on 1 May 1984, made his comment to the effect that it was `surprising and disappointing'. The heads of six Commonwealth missions in Canberra on 5 June 1984 said: . . . most unfortunate that the present coalition policy seems to be a dilution of the progressive policy in Africa pursued by the coalition Government under the leadership of Malcolm Fraser. The Australian Financial Review said on 1 May that it was a `pathetic and shabby' policy. It said that the Opposition was `eagerly embracing the new-line of propaganda and artificial constitutional change being taken by the South African Government'. The National Party Federal Council, on 11 August, overwhelmingly decided that sporting contact with South Africa should be maintained. In fact, the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh) told the National Party Federal Council that many of the activities of South Africa deserved applause. I wish he had detailed those. He said: `What's wrong with having contacts with South Africa? The Leader of the National Party said that he disagreed with the decision, but then he contradicted himself, of course, by calling for the Gleneagles agreement to be changed. The honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), who was then the Leader of the Opposition, said that the National Party's new policy was not binding on the coalition. But he was rapidly contradicted by Sir Robert Sparkes, the Queensland Party President, on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program AM on 13 August, when he said that the decision: . . . in conjunction with the parliamentary wing, the Federal wing of the Party, does represent National Party policy at the Federal level. He said further: Certainly in my own State of Queensland it will be part of the package of policy proposals we will be putting to the electorate when the next Federal election occurs. There is no doubt about where that Party has changed to. So we now have a coalition that is committed to policy changes which will have the effect of weakening our relations with African and Commonwealth nations and of aiding and comforting the oppressors of non-white South Africans. When the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) explained the reason for the changed policy at the Federal Council meeting in August 1984 he said that the `trendies' must be vanquished, and that the Nationals `are not trendy, but we are right'. When he was asked whether this meant that there were Liberals who were trendy and wrong, he replied: Don't you think that follows? That was reported in the Australian on 13 August 1984. I suppose that the honourable members for Kooyong and for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) would be typical of the the trendies who ran foul of those conservatives. When he was Minister for Foreign Affairs, the honourable member for Kooyong supported the Fraser position on South Africa. The honourable member for Goldstein was open and straightforward with his views on the program PM of 19 August, when he said that the South Africans: . . . have got to talk to people. They've got to release people like Nelson Mandela. They've got to end the tension, end the emergency ruling; relax not only the apartheid laws but also the national security laws and just get talking to people. He said that he believed that pressure must be maintained on the South African Government. There appears to be a growing influence on the coalition policy towards South Africa of what has now become known in this country as the `uglies'. The present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) said in this House on 3 March 1985: I believe that it has become popular folklore throughout the world to single out South Africa because South Africa cannot do anything in retaliation. He obviously does not understand what apartheid is about-because generally, I think, he is a man of good will. His one-time leader, Malcolm Fraser, put it clearly, as reported in the Canberra Times of 6 August 1985, when he said: People don't seem to realise that in most countries we do what we can to end discrimination . . . In South Africa the whole thrust of the law is designed to reinforce the total subjection of the black majority population by the minority white population. There have been recent visits by two Victorian National Party members of this House to South Africa, and it would be interesting to know whether the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher) and the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) would have paid entirely for their own trips. Currently, the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman) is visiting that country with the blessing of his Leader, and, given that he was also a journalist, I hope that he notes well the following three points: First, under emergency regulations issued in July of this year, the police can regulate or prohibit news gathering and dissemination. Secondly, under a police order issued in October, all journalists are forbidden to go to Soweto to report unrest-unrest where blacks are beaten and killed for demanding rights as human beings. Thirdly, this police order is now extended to all areas covered by emergency regulations, including the black urban areas in East and West Cape and around Johannesburg. I hope that the honourable member for Wentworth, as a journalist, and his partner, the failed Liberal candidate and disc-jockey Alan Jones, are incensed by the charging of the editor of the Cape Times on 8 November under the Internal Security Act because he dared to interview Oliver Tambo of the African National Congress. I hope that they will have the principle and the courage to protest against the efforts of the South African Government to cover up by censorship the brutal and indiscriminate killing of black South Africans and the inhuman denial of human rights to these people in their own country. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(1.25) —I come with a substantial grievance before this Parliament today and I choose to speak on behalf of my own electorate. As the Parliament would be well aware, the electorate of O'Connor is substantially a wheat growing electorate, and many of the areas are known as the lower producing areas in terms of tonnes of wheat per hectare. They need good seasons and they need good economic conditions to survive; and if that is not all, I was advised yesterday, and with great regret, that a substantial part of the wheat growing areas around Bencubbin, in the Mt Marshall shire, were devastated by hail. It is just the last straw for people who are looking at very marginal crops this year in those particular areas. Western Australia will produce a substantial amount of wheat again this year, but the returns per hectare will be low. The industry needs very optimum conditions, not the sort of conditions that are confronting it today. Farmers have always been prepared to accept the seasons. They know what that is all about, and in years gone by they were able to put away reserves in good seasons which carried them through the bad seasons. Today they make profits in the good seasons but far from sufficient to cover the others. Consequently we are seeing now a rash of farm mortgagee auctions within my electorate-something of great concern to me and to many other people. The odd one is, of course, the result of farmers who have borrowed unwisely, looked too good at the good times, paid very high prices for farms, and borrowed large amounts of money. But, irrespective of that, I draw to the attention of the House an actual example given to me by the Primary Industry Association, which points out that in January a particular farmer was paying 14.25 per cent base for his money, and a margin paid to the bank for getting this money of 1.5 per cent-total 15.75 per cent. That is only nine months ago. Today he has seen that rise progressively-in April to 18.1 per cent; in May to 18.85 per cent, at which stage there was also a jump in the bank lending charge or handling fee; in May to 19.35 per cent, in June to 19.85 per cent; and in September to 20.6 per cent; and no doubt, considering recent announcements as to October and November, he is now paying substantially more than that. This farmer was not even advised of the increasing of those interest charges. Little good that would do him. Money is not like many other products we buy. When one buys most products, one pays the price, and any increase in the price that comes later does not effect oneself. When one buys money in present day circumstances, the price at which it is hired to one can change monthly; it does. Unfortunately one cannot return the product because one has spent it; one has used it to finance one's business, and one is waiting for financial returns. Of course, farmers just cannot carry, nor can the small business sector, this type of interest increase. They have made their decisions and, what is more, they made them on the understanding from a Treasurer they once trusted who told them that interest rates would go down, so they could make a financial commitment the same as many home owners have done in recent times, up to the limit of their capacity to pay, because they thought that the words of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) were true. Farmers expected to see a reduction in interest rates, so that, therefore, they could handle the debt. What has happened? We have seen massive increases. We have seen a situation of interest charges against home owners that is such that the recent wage increase granted to those fortunate people that got a wage increase-and they are only one sector of our community-does not even cover the increases in their home mortgage interest rates. That is the situation that is imposed on people, and I want to take the rest of my time to say why. Just before I do so, I want to make another comment regarding the mortgagee auctions of farms. We have a lot of moves now to try to stop the forced sale of farms, and I approve of that. But that in itself is no good if the farmer is left to rot on the property with no carry-on finance. Admittedly it is difficult to ask banks to throw more money into something that they can consider no longer viable. Maybe we are going to have to look at some type of receiver arrangement. But it is no good the banks saying `Right, we will bow to public opinion; we will not sell these people up', if then they let them rot on the farm with every-increasing interest charges until the inevitable eventually arrives. I think that the banking and the financial institutions have got to look at that, and, even if they make some type of equity arrangement in a future crop, get that farmer producing a crop. Last year was an excellent season and I know a number of farmers who were unable to get carry-on finance and benefit from that very good season, which would have substantially removed their debt burden and the particular interest rate burden. But the real reason why interest rates are so high-and we get all sorts of examples and excuses given to us here by the Treasurer-is that government, and particularly the Federal Government in recent times, has been one of the largest borrowers in history. In fact, in the last three years, the three years of the Hawke Government, we have seen deficits of $8,000m in the first year, $7,000m in the second year, and $5,000m predicted for this year-and I would imagine that under the normal budgetary situation most of that is borrowed already. That is $20,000m borrowed. Because the $5 billion is less than the $7 billion, there is a story circulating around that `We got the deficit down'. Yes, the Government has borrowed less money this year than it did last year; but it has not paid back last year, and that is the consideration that the Australian community does not understand. Small businessmen and home owners look at their bank statements, and the bottom line says how much they owe. It is the accumulation of all their borrowing; and yet the Government struts around saying `We have reduced the deficit' when, in fact, what it is saying is: `We borrowed less money this year than last year, but we have not paid any back yet'. We have a massive interest bill this year, $6,700m-exceeding expenditure on education by nearly $2,000m. But the great problem of that is that it has left no room for anyone else. That would be all right if that was the end of it, but I received a copy of the ANZ Bank Business Indicators the other day, the September issue, No. 186, and it has some very worrying statements in it. It says-and it is talking about a two-year period, the last two years: While GDP-- that is the gross domestic product-- in current prices rose by $42 billion over this period, it was largely financed by gross public sector borrowings of $30 billion-- $30,000m-- and net capital inflow from overseas, mainly in the form of borrowings, of $17.5 billion. When I do that simple arithmetic, I discover that the borrowings are $47.5 billion and the dollar growth in the business of Australia Incorporated, the GDP, is only $42 billion; so we are $5,500m behind on what has been injected into this economy by way of borrowings. I happen to represent the small business people of Australia in this place, and I wonder just how any small businessman could go to his bank manager, having just banked the proceeds of a $100,000 loan, and try to convince him that business had improved. He would get laughed out of the room. Yet we have the Treasurer strutting around here telling us that is how it is working. Of course, the same piece of information, in a chart, tells me that public investment-that is the expenditures of government-in 1981-82 was 7.5 per cent of GDP and is now 8.7 per cent of GDP. That is a growth in public investment. But it also tells us that business investment in 1981-82-the last year of the Fraser Government-was 12.8 per cent of GDP and in 1984-85 it is down to 8.8 per cent of GDP-a drop of 30 per cent in business investment. We have all this money running around the countryside, all pumped in by this Government, but none of it going into the area where it would generate additional dollars. Of course, we have also seen massive activity in the financial sector, company take-overs and others which are just as bad. Going off-shore and borrowing huge amounts of money, just to buy an existing business; not to build a new brewery or a new steel conglomerate, just to take over existing ones at inflated prices. They are the figures that the Treasurer is trying to use to say that there is growth in the economy, when clearly there is not. But on top of this is this huge interest rate burden that is now coming down on the small business community in particular. The Treasurer is boasting that people are still borrowing money. In recent times they have all been forced on to the short term money market. They turn their borrowings over every six months, three months, or whatever. Of course they are still borrowing money. They have to borrow it, otherwise they are put up for a mortgage sale; they are sold up. They have to borrow the money every six months, they have to pay the new interest rates-and I have just read some of the movements that occur in that regard. It is a huge problem. Public consumption has jumped from 16.4 per cent in 1981-82 to 17.1 per cent today; but private consumption has barely moved-in fact, it has dropped a point of a percentage point. This is the situation with which we are confronted. Businesses are not investing. They are not going out there to lift our economy. That is why the value of our dollar is falling. Mr MOUNTFORD(Banks)(1.35) —I rise to speak in this grievance debate in a sense to correct a grievance by speaking for a former member of this House and former Minister of the Crown who can no longer speak on his own behalf. The person I refer to is the late Frank Stewart, the member for Grayndler and Lang during the period 1953 to 1979 and a Minister in the Whitlam Government between 1972 and 1975. The remarks that I will be making are supported by many of his former supporters and colleagues, including the present member for Grayndler, Mr Leo McLeay. On Saturday, 9 November 1985, the Sydney Morning Herald ran an article which quoted two former aides of the late Sir Phillip Lynch, Mr Andrew Hay and Mr Brian Buckley, as saying that a Minister in the Whitlam Government was one of two sources which provided confidential government information to Mr Lynch. This confidential information was that purportedly surrounding the explorations about the possibility of raising overseas loan funds for the Government by the former Minister for Minerals and Energy, the late Rex Connor. In the Sydney Morning Herald of Monday, 11 November 1985, a front-page article by Peter Bowers stated that three former Ministers of theWhitlam Government had told the Herald that they believed the mole in the Government who supposedly fed confidential information to the Liberals during the 1975 crisis was the late Frank Stewart who, at that time, was Vice-President of the Executive Council and Minister Assisting the Treasurer. The Herald article went on to say that none of the three former Ministers was prepared to put his name to these suspicions. However, one former Whitlam Minister, Mr James McClelland, has commented publicly that he had always wondered how the Liberal Party was so well informed about what was going on in the conclaves of the Labor Party. I turn now to an article in the Sun-Herald of 10 November 1985. It is headed `Loans affair: who spilled the beans?' In that, Mr McClelland says that he knew who was responsible, and he said: A troubled conscience over the loans affair was the motivating factor. It was a conscience thing. He was worried about the legality of the loans affair. The person involved was not trying to bring the Government down, but as it turned out, in the end, it was the loans affair that did bring the Government down. Mr McClelland went on by saying that the person who revealed the information did so because he saw `the affair as damaging to the Government'. He went on: He wanted to bring it to an end and decided the best way to do it was to give the information to the Opposition. Mr McClelland is reported as saying: It was not hard to work out who the MP was. He's not alive any more. The two Ministers in the Whitlam Government who have died are Mr Rex Connor and Mr Frank Stewart. One can therefore draw the conclusion that as Rex Connor was the person involved in pursuing the loan raising, he would hardly be providing information to the Opposition-unless, of course, through carelessness; but certainly not by intention. By the process of elimination, therefore, it is clear from Mr McClelland's remarks that he is implying that Frank Stewart was the person so involved. Mr Leo McLeay —A disgraceful allegation. Mr MOUNTFORD —As the honourable member for Grayndler just commented, it was a disgraceful allegation. It is very easy to make assertions 10 years after an event which took place in those chaotic last few months of the Whitlam Government. It is another matter and so much harder to protect the good name of a person who can no longer speak for himself to refute these cowardly statements. As one who had known the late Frank Stewart for almost 20 years, prior to his untimely and tragic death in 1979, I can say that I was proud to have him as a friend. As the former president of his Lang electorate council for 10 years and his campaign director during the same period, I can vouch for his loyalty to the Australian Labor Party and can state without fear of contradiction that no Labor member of this House fought harder to have the policies of our great Party implemented for the benefit of the Australian people. Now he is dead, the lesser mortals speak out and defile his memory. It has been suggested that a person who spent all his life in a Labor family environment, a Labor Party environment, one who was raised in a typical Labor and working class area of Belmore, could have been the person who ratted on his Party and his beliefs by giving a conservative Opposition information about government transactions. What an utter nonsense. I do not believe a word of it and I am sure that none of the members of this House, Labor or conservative, who knew the man would believe it either. These cowardly accusations have caused great distress to the Stewart family, who, I believe, should not be placed in such a position 10 years after the events of 1975. His brother, the Hon. Kevin Stewart, a prominent Minister in the Wran Labor Government, summed up the accusations in a comment in the Sydney Morning Herald of 11 November 1985 when he said that it was `tombstone journalism'. He went on to say: Our dad taught us the ALP was more important than any personal opinion. He also taught us the importance of the ALP for Australia. Frank was so totally devastated at the dismissal of the Government he wasn't going to stand again for election. He said he couldn't be a Member of Parliament where there was no government and no democracy. My brother Jack and I had to console him as well as counsel him to stand again, which he did and was re-elected. He couldn't have done any of this because he always espoused the virtues of being a basic ALP man. No-one could be saying anything about him if he was alive. That is an admirable comment about the late Frank Stewart, and one which we all share. Let me now turn to the person who has made these accusations, Mr Jim McClelland. In Sydney Morning Herald of 13 November 1985, he wrote an article headed `crazy days before the axe fell-an inside view'. I will quote from the article because it puts on record that gentleman's activities on the day of 11 November 1975. He says: There is an infinite variety of what-I-was-doing-at-the-time-the-axe-fell stories. A few minutes after 1 p.m. on November 11, 1975, I was sitting at my work table in the cubby-hole which passed for the Minister of Labor and Immigration's office, trying to catch up with the paper work whilst munching the soggy Parliament House sandwiches which passed for my regular workday nourishment. The phone rang. I answered it myself since all of my staff were at lunch. It was Lionel Murphy ringing from the High Court. He said: I've just had a phone call from Laurel (his daughter) to say that Kerr has sacked the Government. Is that true?' I replied: `Of course not. That's not going to happen. All sorts of rumours are flying around but we're still in control.' Lionel replied: `I hope you're right.' I had barely put my phone down when one of my staff put his head in my door and said: `You don't need to worry any more about reading those files, Jim. You're out of work.' I went to the drinks cupboard and poured myself a triple whiskey. If that was a typically Irish reaction to disaster, Gough's was perhaps the typically puritan reaction: fortify yourself for contest. He went straight back to his by now very temporary home, the lodge, and tucked into a great big steak. I have often wondered what sort of cataclysm would be required to spoil Gough's appetite. I will finish the quotations from that particular article there. His comments in the article seemed fairly straightforward and what he considered to be a true record of his activities in the last hours of government as a Minister-except, perhaps, whose who knew him would have thought he probably had a triple gin rather than a triple whiskey. The question now to be asked is: What did Mr McClelland do after hearing the news that the Government had been sacked? How did he rage on that fateful day? Did he run through the corridors of the other place across King's Hall shouting to his colleagues that the Government had been sacked? Did he go to the office of Senator Ken Wriedt, the Government Leader in the Senate, or to the Leader of Government Business in the Senate, Senator Douglas McClelland, or perhaps to the President of the Senate, Labor Senator Justin O'Byrne. There is no record that he indeed did any of those things. Perhaps he retained his rage until the Senate resumed at 2 p.m. that day, where no doubt he would have turned that rage into eloquent damnation of those sitting on the Opposition benches, those who had wrought this evil and foul deed on a duly elected government. Let us then turn to the Hansard record of such events in that other place from 2 p.m. on that fateful day. We see on page 1880 of the Senate Hansard that the sitting resumed at 2 p.m. If we go through the happenings of that afternoon after 2 p.m., we find that there was a question answered by Senator Wheeldon, another question answered, indeed, by Senator James McClelland on students from South Vietnam and Cambodia. The matters go on. There were questions on notice; there was one more matter brought up by Senator McClelland before, indeed, the Appropriation Bills were brought into that particular establishment and eventually passed at 2.20 p.m. So, as we can see, the Appropriation Bills were passed by the Senate just after 2.20 p.m. If Labor members of the House of Representatives or the Senate had known at 1 p.m. that the Government was to be sacked, a very different set of circumstances could have taken place. The following questions are raised: If Mr McClelland knew, as he has stated, that at just after 1 p.m. on 11 November the Government was to be sacked, he had a bounden duty to inform his Party colleagues. He did not do that. Being a charitable person, I rather think the years of time have clouded the memory of Jim McClelland and that his recollections of what happened on that day are not accurate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(1.45) —I associate myself with any defence of the late Frank Stewart-a great parliamentarian and a good Australian. I just say to any critics that he might have-I cannot understand how there would be any-please, let the man rest. The ears of the world at present are tuned to the radio signals from Geneva. One shares in the hopes of millions that when the discussions between Soviet Leader Gorbachev and Amercian President Reagan are finalised, the framework for world peace will have been firmly established. It is an historic meeting and I earnestly hope that it will be a productive one. But, because many of us are removed a little from the international halls of power and debate, these conferences usually do not generate in us a feeling of deep emotion. All of us, however, have our personal attachments, our prejudices, our sense of family traditions and, I suspect, our grand dreams. Like ever so many, I have all of these, possibly far too many for one's own personal good. One life-long attachment has been, and I know will continue to be, to that little country sometimes called Ireland but, to those of us who look upon it as our motherland, called `A little bit of Heaven that fell from out of the sky'. From a small boy, I have been a ready and spontaneous listener to my father, whose parents came from Northern Ireland, and my mother, whose parents came from Southern Ireland. Not all of my grandparents were Catholics, but they all came from farming families. There came through in all the discussions I had with my parents and their friends a rather clear message and that was always at the centre of the message: The Irish at heart are fervent advocates of their country; they are sentimentalists, and they tend to have a clear feeling to wish no one ill-will. My library contains many books on Irish people and Irish history. I have visited the country on many occasions. The sight of the shamrock stirs my feelings, and it is with pride, in moments of relaxation, that I wear a number eight Irish rugby guernsey. Needless to say, on my first visit I fell in love with the place and its people, and that love affair continues unabated. The House will understand, therefore, the significance to me of the recent agreement signed by Prime Minister Thatcher and Taoiseach Fitzgerald at Hillsborough Castle, Northern Island, on Friday, 15 November 1985. I want to record in the pages of Hansard that agreement. In doing so, I want to pay tribute to the Irish people, who have played a great role in the development of the Australian ethos-be it in citizenship, politics, religion, the professions, business or sport. Their record of achievement and contribution has been unbelievable. We are grateful for it. I hope that Australian recognition has been given to the agreement; that hope has been expressed that all of Ireland and all Irish people can live in peace; that we, in Australia, believe they are important; that we care about them, and that this will give them a renewed determination to live in peace and harmony. Prime Minister Thatcher and Taoiseach Fitzgerald are two outstanding Prime Ministers. They have demonstrated to the world their statesmanship, their vision and their courage. Their important meeting, and the resultant agreement, would not have been an easy decision for them to arrive at. The agreement is a courageous and determined effort to promote peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland and between Northen Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Many people, Australians, Americans and others, especially those of Irish descent, have prayed for an end to violence in the land of their ancestry and the land they care for. They, too, can take pride in this important step forward. Of course, being a realist, I am aware that given the complex situation in Northern Ireland, all may not applaud this agreement. However, now that a framework for peace has been established, the work of constructing a durable peace must proceed. What has been destroyed by hatred and violence must be rebuilt to give hope to those who have been tempted by despair. The British and Irish governments have pledged their co-operation in promoting the economic and social development for those areas in both parts of Ireland which have suffered from the instability of recent years. The agreement has three main elements. The first element is a preamble which includes our total rejection of violence and our recognition of the validity of both traditions in Northern Ireland. The second element is an article in which the governments affirm that any change in the status of Northern Ireland would come about only with the consent of a majority of people of Northern Ireland, which recognises that the present wish of a majority is for no change and declares that if in the future a majority formally consent to a united Ireland, the two governments will support legislation accordingly The third element comprises articles establishing a new intergovernmental conference concerned both with Northern Ireland and with relations between the two parts of Ireland. The Irish Republic will be able to put forward views and proposals in the conference of stated aspects of Northern Ireland affairs and determined efforts will be made to resolve any differences. We shall also be putting forward views in particular on cross-border co-operation and security, but also on economic, social and cultural matters, including the enhancement of cross-border co-operation in combating terrorism. It is appropriate at this stage to record extracts from the remarks after the conference of both Prime Minister Thatcher and Taoiseach Fitzgerald. Prime Minister Thatcher said: On behalf of the United Kingdom, I went into this agreement because I was not prepared to tolerate a situation of continuing violence. I want to offer help and hope to young people, particularly that the cycle of violence and conflict can be broken. I believe in the Union and that it will last as long as the majority so wish. I point out that the legitimacy of the Union position has been recognised by the Republic in a formal international agreement. Taoiseach Fitzgerald said: Throughout these negotiations, the Irish Government's approach has been to seek ways of securing recognition of and respect for the rights and aspirations of both traditions in this land; a process which must, of its nature, contribute also to better relations between the peoples of Ireland and Britain. Our purpose is to secure equal recognition and respect for the two identities in Northern Ireland. Nationalists can now raise their heads, knowing that their position is-and is seen to be-on an equal footing with that of members of the Unionist community. This agreement gives a fresh opportunity to all people in Ireland to forget about the past, to plan for a better future, and I hope that people will seize it and work diligently for peace without prejudice. Of course, one does not change the course of history through one agreement, but at least it points the way. We do need people to bring a sense of balance and right direction to the debate. It is not for me to criticise the Reverend Ian Paisley and Mr Enoch Powell, but it appears to me, from first-hand observation and from thousands of hours of discussing the situation, both here and in Ireland, that the last thing that Ireland and Irish people want is a destructive emphasis such as has been, however strongly and rightly they feel about it, the thrust of the contributions by those two people in the past. During our own lifetimes, occasionally all of us are helped and uplifted by words of encouragement and good wishes. The Australian Government is known for forwarding its views and support or criticism on matters of international concern. To my mind, that indicates that we have come of age and are a nation respected in world circles. Not all of us, of course, agree with government decisions, but a message of support and best wishes to the governments of both Britain and the Republic of Ireland is good in the circumstances. If encouragement and support are given, quite obviously progress will occur. I recall, not with any pride whatsoever, that on my first visit to Ireland many years ago, there was great tension and great fear present everywhere. One was continually stopped and searched. It was an unnerving experience to have, on many occasions, an armed soldier at each window of the car and, in close proximity sandbags, soldiers with machine-guns. Life must have been very difficult. Now life is more relaxed and free of tension. Much has been achieved; much remains to be done. Let us all realise that in matters of such deep national concern, national pride and tradition, things do not stand still. There must be of necessity a forward momentum in the pursuit of peace, because if there is not, there will be a return to the non-caring days of Lord John Russell, Prime Minister of England during the famine years of 1847-48, when, through starvation amidst a time of plenty, due to potato disease, the population of Ireland decreased from eight million to four million. Lord John Russell's remarks in the English Parliament when questioned on why he was allowing Irish people to die because of starvation while at the same time they were exporting to England record quotas of cereals, dairy products and beef, were-and I would hope they would serve as a reminder to sections of Australians, including parliamentarians, that this is not the way-`It is just too bad if people die, but, as Prime Minister, I want to let market forces prevail'. Nor do we want, on the other side, the obvious pride expressed through an inscription on a tombstone at the Rock Cemetery in Northern Ireland of Trooper Maughan, who was a leader of the regional Irish Republican Army establishment and who was praised for bringing death and misery to many people. We do not want a return to either of these types of philosophies, and I hope that all Australian people will give encouragement to Prime Minister Thatcher and Taoiseach Fitzgerald, who to my mind, in this agreement, have given an example of good stewardship to which all leaders of the world would do well to aspire and to achieve. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(1.55) —I thank the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh) for his typical generosity in giving up some of his speaking time to enable me to speak on behalf of Queensland women. I wish to draw the attention of the House to an appalling lack in the provision of health services which exists in my home State of Queensland. I refer to health services for Queensland women, those beings who number over 50 per cent of the society and whose skills are basic to the survival of our society but whose specific health needs are being blatantly overlooked. This glaring neglect is obvious in all sectors of the Queensland community: In rural areas, where women are isolated from information and advice available at health centres and the hopsitals to which city women have some access. No literature is available to rural women to guide and enlighten them regarding personal and peculiarly feminine health problems. Women are over-represented in the ranks of the aged; therefore, any lack in aged care reflects more heavily on them. In Aboriginal communities, with a lack of proper health facilities, the problems are again compounded, particularly for women who also share the problems of isolation experienced by rural women. Migrant women are also in a particularly disadvantaged position with regard to information regarding health services. But maybe more than anywhere else, it is in the area of occupational health that the neglect surrounding the care and prevention of women's health problems is most sharply defined. The need for greater recognition of, and health care for women is one which crosses national boundaries; but in Queensland, Australia, the problem is grossly exaggerated by a government which has turned its back on the problem. This is reflected in the levels of State support for the women's health conference held in Adelaide in September last. Queensland was the only State which did not assist with funding for the conference. But this is only one symptom of the disease of neglect which blights women's health issues in Queensland. On 13 December, the Brisbane Women's Health Centre will close down, allegedly because of a lack of funding. The Women's Health Service has been a light on the hill for Queensland women. It services 300 women a month, free of charge-low-income people with special needs. Moreover, the very Queensland Government which refuses to fund the services calls on it for help. The State Health Department regularly calls on Vietnamese staff members to visit Vietnamese women in State hospitals. Trinh Tran offers comfort, advise, information and after care service to Vietnamese people who cannot speak English. Other States authorities-the Rape Squad, and the Children's Services Department-also call on the staff of the Women's Health Centre, who speak 10 languages between them. Rural women in Queensland appeal to the centre, the only health centre in Queensland. South Australia has four such centres, and the Queensland centre is to be closed because the Queensland Government will not fund it. It is a scandal. Queensland will have nothing. Why has this happened? It is a question that many concerned Queenslanders are asking. It is a question which, if I receive Mr Speaker's indulgence, I intend to ask the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) in this place later this day. One significant group of people concerned about the lack of women's health services in Queensland is the Queensland Nurses Union. These currently predominantly female professionals share a concern based not only on their intimate knowledge of health needs in Queensland but on the extraordinary incidence of occupational health hazards encountered by them in the course of their own work. Back injuries represent 49 per cent of all injuries experienced by Queensland nurses, and this is higher than for all other occupational groups. In 1983-84 more than 2,000 working weeks were lost by Queensland working nurses due to back injuries, which equalled $700,000 in wages. Yet nurses in Queensland public hospitals are not covered by any acceptable occupational safety legislation. South Australia, New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania have introduced laws based on British occupational health and safety legislation. Nor do nurses fare any better if they work in private nursing homes where the Factories and Shops Act, the only legislation limiting weight to be lifted by women, does not apply. Little wonder that Queensland nurses are concerned at the lack of health services for women in Queensland. They speak from a position of knowledge but typically for such a dedicated work force, they are responding by fighting for a better deal for all women in Queensland. To start this campaign the Queensland Nurses Union, in co-operation with the Women's Health Centre, is organising a seminar-Women's Health Care Issues in Queensland-to be held in Brisbane on 1 December. Principal speaker will be Liz Furler, Women's Adviser to the South Australian Health Commission, and the seminar should be supported by all people concerned about the deterioration of health services in Queensland. I agree with Jude Abbs of the Women's Health Centre that Queensland women have suffered 100 years of neglect. The health of all women, migrants, Aboriginal and young women in particular, have been ignored for too long. The Queensland Government's deliberate downgrading to the point of complete eradication of the only service offering necessary health care to Queensland women in special need tarnishes Australia's record in health care. It is a scandal. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106, as amended for this session, the debate is interrupted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr CARLTON —My question without notice is addressed to the Treasurer. I refer to comments in the speech by the Secretary to the Treasury yesterday which indicate that the price effects of the initial devaluation could be 3 per cent. Does the Treasurer acknowledge that a full discounting of wages for the price effects of the devaluation is necessary to stop downward pressure on the dollar and retain any gains in competitiveness? If so, will he now revise the Government's decision to limit the discounting to 2 per cent? Mr KEATING —How thick these people are! We can actually publish these numbers and discuss them for weeks and months, yet these dummies and dimwits opposite cannot understand what we are saying to them. The Government has never presumed that the direct price effects of the depreciation were the only price effects. In the whole analysis on this issue we made it quite clear that the direct price effects would be visible-the ones to which the Australian Statistician would point in national wage hearings-and would be part of the effect only. Of course there would be direct price effects beyond 2 per cent. There was a most dishonest representation of me by the former Treasurer today. He said that the price effect could be as high as 3 per cent rather than the 2 per cent claimed by me. I have never claimed that. The whole point of the discounting was that there would be 2 per cent off the April wage case and a further approximate 2 per cent by deferment of the productivity case for 12 months. Because there is productivity growth in the economy of 2 per cent or better and because this last week we saw the wage drift at 0.2 per cent for six months, or less than 0.5 per cent for a year, it means that there is a very strong element of productivity growth available to lower costs by a further 12 months deferment of the productivity case. So there is about 2 per cent plus 2 per cent stored up for discounting, not just 2 per cent. The Government never suggested 2 per cent and that is why the deferment of the productivity case was always important. Mr Howard —Ah! Mr KEATING —Do not say `Ah' if you do not understand the analysis, John. If you are that dimwitted, do not expose your ignorance by saying `Ah'. Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition and the leaders on his side of the House receive a fair degree of tolerance from the Chair because of the positions they hold. I suggest that they are exceeding that tolerance and I will not hesitate to take action. Mr Howard —On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I have great respect for you and if you presume to deliver a request of that kind to me and my colleagues we take it seriously. I might also point out that part of the provocation on this side of the House is clearly due to the naked inability of the Treasurer to cop what he is so willing to dish out. Mr SPEAKER —Order! That is not a point of order. That is not a matter for the Chair. The Treasurer answers the question that is asked. Mr KEATING —If the Leader of the Opposition would resist interjecting, I would not need to respond. The point of the remark was that if the Leader of the Opposition does not understand now, nine months on from the depreciation and a couple of months on from the discounting, that the Government was in there to get a 2 per cent discount off the wage case plus deferment of the productivity case to meet the direct and indirect effects of the depreciation, he does not understand the major national economic debate. If he is in that parlous position he should not be asking questions in the House based on a policy or a framework of understanding which is essentially incorrect. The Leader of the Opposition, who refers to the speech of the Secretary to the Treasury, has been saying in the House for days that the discount is not enough, that we should have had one per cent off the September case, that we passed on full indexation of 3.8 per cent and that was not good enough. Yet this is what the Secretary to the Treasury said: As you know, the Full Bench concluded from the information submitted to it that the economic effects of spreading the discount between the November and April wage cases would be minimal and transitory. Our own figuring supports that conclusion; movements in the CPI would be virtually the same from mid-1986 under either approach. In other words, he is confirming what I have said in the House repeatedly: That 2 per cent off the April case had the same inflationary out-turn consequences in subsequent years as one per cent off September and one per cent off April. That is a point the Leader of the Opposition has denied and attacked the Government over perpetually. He is wrong, he is always wrong. It is quite clear that he is wrong here. Implicit in that remark by the Secretary to the Treasury is that the discounting is adequate and that it went to the full effects of the depreciation. Mr JACOBI —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is privatisation of public enterprises a route to lower taxes? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the honourable member for Hawker for his interesting and very relevant question. It is very relevant particularly in the State that he so admirably represents. Anyone who knows anything about economics and matters fiscal understands that privatisation is no substitute for the hard decisions that have to be taken on government expenditure. Privatisation will not lead to lower taxation. The British are still waiting for their tax cuts. I run the risk of being portrayed as slightly diverging from the view of my good friend the Treasurer because I must say this: The Leader of the Opposition is not universally always wrong. Just occasionally he happens to get it right. On 18 July this year he got it right. On this occasion little Johnnie came in to help Johnnie Olsen once again when he addressed a special Liberal Party conference on taxation. These were his words: Privatisation is not a soft easy way of cutting government spending. Those who argue otherwise are living in a `fiscal fool's paradise'. That is what the Leader of the Opposition said. He said that one could not talk about privatisation as being an instrument which substitutes for these hard decisions, that one could not use it for these other purposes and that people who said that one could do so were living in a fiscal fool's paradise. That is precisely the domain in which the potential Premier of South Australia seems to be living. The South Australian Leader of the Opposition appears to be telling South Australians that reducing or eliminating certain government activities by privatisation is: `one way to make sure their personal tax burden is permanently reduced'. That statement by the Leader of the Opposition in South Australia is false. Anyone who knows anything about economics knows that it is false, and it is false precisely in the terms of the specific statement by the Leader of the Opposition in this place on 18 July. He said that it is false and he is absolutely correct in saying so. The Liberals in South Australia are reversing the normal batting order of Liberals when they go to elections. The Liberals usually change their position on tax after an election. The people of South Australia will never forget the record of the Liberals when it comes to the question of taxes. They will remember the great fistful of dollars in 1977. When the Liberals were elected, what did they do? They ripped the tax cut back from the people of Australia. They usually wait until after the election but on this occasion Mr Olsen has not waited until after the election to do his tap dance of change. Honourable members will recall what he did when the Premier of South Australia introduced his subsidy on building society home loans. He said it was outrageous. It was so outrageous that he introduced an urgency motion into the House to attack the Premier for taking that action. As the election got closer what did Mr Olsen do? In a major turnaround, as the Australian Financial Review stated on 18 November, the South Australian Leader of the Opposition pledged to maintain the recently introduced subsidy which five weeks previously he said was outrageous. That indicates how much notice we can take of the Liberals at the State level-just as much as we can take at the Federal level-when they dare to put their feet into the taxation debate. We cannot trust them. What they say one week they will repudiate the next. I believe that the people of South Australia will not want to make their State a playground for experimental Liberal policies. That would be a very costly mistake for them to make. They will not be fooled. They know, as anyone who thinks about the issue of privatisation knows, that it would mean higher prices, higher costs, higher taxes and higher fares. If the Liberals in South Australia were given power and that position were brought about essential services would be cut or cut out. The needs of South Australians would be ignored in the interests of a privileged few. I say to the honourable member for Hawker that it is quite clear that the Liberals in South Australia have not thought through the implications of what they are trumpeting in the pre-election period. They have made their myriad tax cuts and new expenditure proposals contingent on the fire sale proceeds from the disposal of several key public enterprises. It is interesting, as the Australian Financial Review pointed out earlier this week, and as it demonstrated in a way that the Liberals have not denied convincingly, that the key disposal-that is, the suggested disposal of the 49 per cent South Australian Government interest in the South Australian Oil and Gas Corporation Pty Ltd-would probably yield far less, something like $50m less, than the figure which the South Australian Liberals are trying to foist on the people of South Australia. It is quite clear that in South Australia, as in Australia as a whole, privatisation would be an expensive and disastrous experiment. The people of South Australia have seen through the Liberals in South Australia as the people of Australia have seen through this pathetic bunch at the Federal level. Mr CARLTON —I refer the Treasurer to Mr Fraser's statement yesterday, when he noted that our inflation rate was twice that of our trading partners, that Australia's inflation rate must be brought into line with that of our competitors in the shortest practicable time. In view of this statement, does the Treasurer still maintain, as he did on Wednesday, that inflation as measured by the consumer price index is a `singularly inappropriate' indicator of international competitiveness? Mr KEATING —I do not regard my role as Treasurer as being an economic tutor to this character on the other side of the House and to stand here every day to try to drag him up the learning curve. The point I was making the other day-I will go through it slowly-- Mr Howard —Avoid another answer. Mr KEATING —Mr Speaker, is the Leader of the Opposition going to continue with this activity? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr KEATING —I know he is rattled. The point I was making the other day was that in respect of the price induced effects on our inflation rate coming from imports, what matters in terms of Australia's competitiveness is the addition to costs, the cost structure. I made the point that with award wage growth of 4.1 per cent in average weekly earnings over the year to September we are very competitive in terms of costs with our major trading partners. Over 1985-86, the forecast period when we will be subject to the influences of the depreciation, we will probably experience wage cost growth of around 6 per cent. This compares with an average of 6.4 per cent over the last year for our eight major Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development trading partners. Our overall ordinary time wage cost growth has been 5.4 per cent and the average for the major OECD countries has been 6.4 per cent-a higher figure than ours. Even as we move into 1985-86, with an increase of around 6 per cent we will be competitive with our major trading partners. The point Mr Fraser made was that we must lock out the import induced price surge from the wage system. Of course, we are doing that. He made that point. The discounting of wage rises next year will drag Australia's inflation rate back into line, competitive with our trading partners. There is a lot of talk about wage flexibility around the world. We have shown this year that we can get wage flexibility of appropriate orders of magnitude and, indeed, better than not the average of all the OECD countries but the average of the eight major industrial trading partners. We are doing better than them on average. We will keep up with them next year. Therefore, Mr Fraser's point stands and my point stands. They are both consistent, which the Leader of the Opposition did not understand yesterday and which he obviously does not understand today. Mr BLANCHARD —Is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs aware of a newspaper report that high powered arms are being stockpiled secretly in Western Australia for Aboriginals? What action does he propose to take? Mr HOLDING —I thank the honourable member for his question. I am aware of the allegations attributed to the President of the Australian Police Federation and the Assistant Secretary of the Western Australian Police Union that Aborigines in Western Australia are storing arms. It has been my practice not to make public statements on matters that are essentially those for State police administration. However, I believe that all honourable members would agree-certainly it is the position of this Government-that no section of the Australian community is entitled under our laws, nor will such action be tolerated by this Government, to store weapons which essentially have been allocated and supplied to the Australian Army for defence purposes. Accordingly, I sent a telex to the Minister in Western Australia, Mr Carr, seeking his advice on this matter. I also sent a telex to the President of the Australian Police Federation and to the officer who made those charges, the Assistant Secretary of the Western Australian Police Union. I remind all honourable members that members of the police force are trained in the accumulation and weighing of evidence. If any member of the police force says, from that position that he holds in the community, that any member of Australian society is accumulating arms for these sorts of purposes, that must be treated very seriously. The advice I received from Mr Carr was that the allegation of the storing of ammunition by the Jigalong community was raised in the Western Australian Parliament earlier this year and was the subject of a full police investigation in September. I am advised that the police investigation showed that there was nothing at all sinister about the purchase of that ammunition and that in fact it was in accordance with the needs and the practices of that community. It is interesting to note, therefore, that that evidence must have been known, or ought to have been known, to any police officer making such a very serious allegation. Clearly this statement was made without any foundation. The more serious allegation concerning the accumulation of automatic weapons was the subject of a somewhat more moderate statement on a radio broadcast last night. Again, I am advised by Mr Carr that the weapons mentioned were stolen from a Melbourne armoury something like 10 years ago. Mr Goodluck —Is Carr a policeman? Mr HOLDING —Mr Carr is a responsible member of the Western Australian Parliament and I would have thought that the honourable member would have known that. He is the Minister for Police in Western Australia. He advises me that as a result of the police investigation a non-Aboriginal person in Western Australia was charged and subsequently three persons in Victoria were charged in respect of the theft that had taken place. So, in respect of that second serious allegation, on the evidence available from Mr Carr and the lack of response to my own telex it is perfectly clear that these statements were made by police officers who should have known better, who were in a position to be in possession of the facts and who were prepared to make these statements without any regard at all for their truth of falsity. That has to be a matter of substantial concern and I would be failing in my duty to this House if I did not point out that this type of unsubstantiated and highly sensationalised allegation reflects prejudice rather than professionalism and serves only to detract from the efforts that I know are being made right around Australia by many dedicated and senior members of the State police forces who are seriously committed to improving police and Aboriginal community relations. In that context the statements that have been made for and on behalf of the police union ought to be deplored and I hope the union will take steps to retract them. Mr HOWARD —Does the Prime Minister agree with the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury yesterday that the productivity-superannuation arrangement would add to employer costs? If so, does he still maintain that that deal is part of an overall arrangement which fully discounts for the price effects of the devaluation earlier this year? Mr HAWKE —I share with the Treasurer a sort of feeling of despair-I do not know whether it is quite the correct term, but it is probably the kindliest word to use-about the continued incapacity of the Leader of the Opposition to deal, with any degree of honesty, with the issues that are central to an intelligent debate about the state of the Australian economy. It is quite clear that the Secretary to the Treasury has entirely endorsed the policies which are being pursued by this Government. In the speech from which the Leader of the Opposition seeks to take a sentence here and there, the Secretary made it quite clear-- Mr Howard —Did you clear it? Mr HAWKE —I wonder whether people heard the interjection. The Leader of the Opposition interjected: `Did you clear it?' He asked whether I cleared the speech of the Secretary to the Treasury. Does that not conjure up some interesting thoughts? I wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition, when he was Treasurer, asked this of the Prime Minister of the day, with whom he obviously had such congenial relations, the gentleman whom he now seeks to repudiate as a cover for his own current inadequacy, whenever the then Secretary to the Treasury-I have forgotten his name at the moment; I think it was Stone, Mr J. O. Stone-was making one of his very infrequent public speeches: `Oh, Malcolm, have you cleared this?' What a nonsense observation. It may well have been the case that the Leader of the Opposition when in government would have done better had he taken a little more notice of some other people instead of pursuing his own ideological stupidities. Let me make it clear that this Government does not seek to impose constraints and restrictions upon people of the intellectual capacity and integrity of Bernie Fraser, the Secretary to the Treasury. It is the case that the Treasurer was aware of the contents of the speech delivered by Mr Fraser and, of course, there was no reason why he should have repudiated what was said because the Secretary to the Treasury said that the policies that were being pursued by this Government were appropriate, that they were correct-as, of course, they are. The Secretary to the Treasury is in daily contact with the stream of evidence which shows that this country is doing better in its conduct of economic policies than virtually any other Western economy. No other country has the rate of economic growth that we have. Whereas the prospect for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in 1985 is for an employment growth of only about 2 per cent, it will be 2 3/4 per cent in this country. In 1986 the rate of employment growth in Australia will be at least 2 per cent-double the one per cent anticipated for the OECD. On the real matters that affect the welfare of the people of Australia the Secretary to the Treasury is in daily contact with the evidence and that evidence has led him to the conclusion that the economic policies of this Government are sound. He made it perfectly clear that it was his judgment that those policies were, and remain, appropriate. He said that any objective assessment of the Government's capacity to continue to provide responsible policies should bear in mind its success to date in establishing what he referred to as `the solid foundations for a sustained period of improved economic performance'. I can only heartily endorse those sentiments of the Secretary to the Treasury. The Secretary understands that a central instrument in the achievement of those outstandingly successful economic results has been the accord, in its original form and now in its renegotiated form. He is aware that that renegotiated accord is entirely appropriate to the circumstances with which we are faced. Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —One of the tragedies of the current Australian political situation is that we have this gaggle of ghouls opposite trying to conjure up some concept of a decaying economy. They are tragically disappointed that the evidence is to the contrary. All the evidence put by the Secretary to the Treasury is to the contrary. I conclude on this point: A measure of the strength of the Australian people is that they were able to survive this mob opposite in government and it is a measure of the perspicacity of the Australian people that they are increasingly repudiating this crowd opposite as a bunch of unprincipled irrelevancies. Ms JAKOBSEN —Is the Minister for Trade aware of recent suggestions by the Leader of the National Party of Australia that the closer economic relations agreement with New Zealand should be reviewed? Can the Minister explain to the House how the Government views those comments in the context of recent demands by the Confederation of Australian Industry for increased access to New Zealand markets through the closer economic relations avenue? Mr DAWKINS —I consider the remarks by the Leader of the National Party to be entirely irresponsible. He was suggesting that, in the context of trying to apply some political pressure on New Zealand in terms of decisions that New Zealand has made in its strategic interests, we should apply economic pressure on New Zealand be reviewing the closer economic relations agreement that exists between Australia and New Zealand. The first point I want to make is that it was his very much more illustrious predecessor who was the father of CER and who negotiated it successfully to the point where my very illustrious predecessor was able to consummate it and bring it into effect early in 1983. I think the general conclusion is that the operation of CER has been a very great success. Indeed, our trade with New Zealand has grown more rapidly than has our trade with the rest of the world. New Zealand's trade with us also has grown more rapidly than has its trade with the rest of the world. In other words, it has been an example of how, by freeing up and liberalising trading arrangements, one is able to achieve mutually beneficial advantages. When one looks at the complaints of the Opposition in the context of our trade performance-much of which, of course, is historic of origin and very largely its responsibility-and at the very great improvement that there has been in trans-Tasman trade, to our great advantage, one finds that it is highly irresponsible of the Leader of the National Party to call into question and to ask us to review this very great advance that has been made on Australia's part. I go on to say that in the context of the recent ministerial review that took place in relation to CER, it was the unanimous view of Australian industry-both the CAI and those representing other interests, including agriculture-that it was important to maintain the momentum of CER in order to establish a more predictable, stable and growing trading relationship with New Zealand. Let me say one other thing: The decisions that our predecessors took to enter into CER and the progress that has been made since have meant that there is a growing interdependence between the economy of New Zealand and the economy of Australia. Any economic sanctions which are imposed on New Zealand, either by us, stupidly, or by anyone else, equally stupidly, will have reprecussions as far as the Australian economy is concerned. The point is that if New Zealand sneezes we are likely to catch a cold. Mr WHITE —My question is directed to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. Did the Minister receive a letter dated 27 May 1985 from a boat manufacturing company wishing to discuss matters relating to the Australian Institute of Sport? Did the Minister call for a report from the Institute on matters relating to the purchase of boats, on tendering procedures or on any other financial matters? Is the Minister aware of a report in May this year by the Institute's auditors which was critical of the Institute's audit controls? Mr JOHN BROWN —I do not recall receiving the letter from the boat manufacturer to which the honourable member refers, but I will check on it. If I could just say something about the report which appeared in the Daily Telegraph yesterday on the purchase of those boats-- Mr Howard —What about the internal audit? Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition allow the Minister to answer his question. Mr JOHN BROWN —I have not finished my answer yet, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —That is why I suggested to the Leader of the Opposition that he might listen. Mr JOHN BROWN —Some questions were raised in the Daily Telegraph yesterday about the propriety of the purchase of some boats for the rowing unit at the Institute of Sport. My information is that tenders or offers were received from two suppliers. There was a difference in price-I think it was around the $5,000 mark-and, in fact, the Institute accepted the higher tender. The efficacy of the tender does not revolve simply around the price. The decision was made by the Executive Director, a member of the Board of Management, the Chairman of the National Amateur Rowing Council and the two rowing coaches at the Institute with regard to which was the better boat. That also had regard to the fact that, because the rowing unit was coming into the Institute, the Institute was taking some boats from the Rowing Council which presently existed and it was convenient and in fact advisable that the new boats that were purchased be compatible with the equipment that already existed. Anyhow, that is a matter that will be discussed further when I receive the report from the internal auditors next week. With regard to there being a critical letter from the internal auditors, no, I do not recall it; but I will check that again. I have been in touch with the internal auditors and, as I mentioned in the House two days ago, Price Waterhouse has been reinvited back to the Institute to give me a report on the questions or criticisms about the financial administration of the Institute of Sport which were made properly and will be properly answered in the newspaper this week. I will return to the House next week with a full and comprehensive report form the internal auditors as to the financial arrangements. But I am not admitting to receiving a critical report. If I did receive one, I do not recall it, which leads me to think that I probably did not. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Can the Minister for Trade advise the House of the growth that has taken place in Australia's export of manufactured goods, particularly during recent years, under the policies being pursued within his portfolio to give maximum government support to our exporters? Mr DAWKINS —I thank the honourable member for Charlton for continuing this rain of questions. The question he raises is crucially important in the context of the debate about Australia's current account position. The first point I want to make is one which the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have made repeatedly; that is, the earliest effects in terms of improving our current account position will be the price effects of imports and the reduction in imports which we are likely to see during the latter half of this financial year. Beyond that, we are very confident that the effects of the devaluation will be a continuing improvement as far as the export of manufactured goods is concerned. It is worth pointing out that it is the trade in manufacturers and services which has been the fastest growing area of world trade. Yet it is an area in which Australia has been a poor performer. The point is that this is not the result of anything which has happened in the last couple of years. That poor performance is due to inappropriate policies in the industry area which have been applied over the last 30 years, particularly those which were initiated by our bankrupts predecessors. We have been engaged in a review of those policies and a strengthening of the base of the manufacturing sector within this country. I instance the very successful steel plan and the motor vehicle plan as being two of the recent examples of that important advance. Let me give a couple of examples of the success that has been achieved in the area of exports of manufactured goods when one compares 1982-83 with 1984-85. Internal combustion piston engines and parts have grown by 51 per cent, office machinery and automatic data processing equipment have grown by 85 per cent, passenger motor vehicles by 39 per cent, automotive parts and accessories by 37 per cent, aircraft and associated equipment and parts by 67 per cent, and photographic and cinematographic supplies by 40 per cent. These are just a few instances where Australian manufacturing industry is back in the ring in terms of its being internationally competitive and internationally successful. It is important to realise that it is in the areas of manufacturing industry and the services sector where the results of depreciation are likely to be most significant. What we will see over the rest of this year and, more particularly, into next year is an improvement in the health and sustainability of our manufacturing sector. I make one other point. When one talks about the major areas of Australia's trade-agriculture, mining, fuel and so on-exports are substantially in the hands of very large Australian companies or statutory marketing authorities. In the area of manufacturing and services, exports are very largely in the hands of smaller Australian companies. It is important for their success to ensure that they are supported in their marketing efforts, and the Australian Government has improved the support it is providing to those smaller, middle sized exporters through the establishment of the Australian Trade Commission. It is a matter of great regret that the Opposition, at a time when manufacturing and services are poised to make a greater impact on the international market, has decided to oppose the establishment of the Australian Trade Commission. The Australian Trade Commission will bring together the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation, which was established by the coalition, the Australian Overseas Projects Corporation, which was established by the coalition, the Export Development Grants Board, which was established by the coalition, and the Australian Trade Commissioner Service, which has been supported by all governments over the last 50 years. The fact that the Opposition will continue its economic sabotage of this country by opposing the establishment of this very important vehicle to improve Australia's trading performance is nothing less than scandalous. Mr ROCHER —What guarantee can the Minister for Defence give that Western Australia will obtain a significant share of contracts for construction of our new submarines? Mr BEAZLEY —One of the points I have made consistently since the Government announced its intention to build all six submarines in Australia is that considerable opportunities will arise, in all areas where there is substantial production in electronics and in heavy engineering, for Australian industry throughout the States. Over time I have been attempting to encourage the States to focus not only on where the submarine will be assembled but also on the opportunities that will arise to supply other parts of the submarine, as the value in the submarine lies largely outside the area specifically associated with final assembly. From the response from Australian companies right across Australia to the extensive briefings that have been conducted by the submarine project team of Australian industry in all States, one could virtually guarantee that some work associated with the submarine will be done in most States of this country. That development is to be welcomed. Mr Goodluck —What about Tasmania? Mr BEAZLEY —Tasmania is late in on the act but it is trying a little harder now. Mr MAHER —Is the Attorney-General aware of reports in the past few days that a person facing very serious charges in New South Wales may travel to Israel to avoid prosecution? If so, what is the Attorney-General doing to ensure that persons accused of offences do not avoid prosecution by travelling to countries from which their extradition cannot be sought? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am unable to comment on the particular matter raised because it relates to a prosecution in New South Wales. However, the general concept of what can be done to bring back to Australia people who have been charged with a criminal offence relates to extradition treaties. In the past we have had a number of extradition treaties, mainly on a colonial basis, inherited from the British Commonwealth. They were not very effective and, in many cases, were not all-embracing. As a result of that and the Stewart Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking, it has become necessary to have another look at what we should be doing in the area of extradition. In February this year we set up a task force and we have developed a new form of extradition treaty which I think will be accepted in all countries of the Western world. Since February we have signed eight such treaties, particularly with countries in Europe. That action immediately guarantees that we have closed loopholes that previously existed whereby extradition could not be carried out unless the offence was identified. No longer do we have to talk about the offence so much as the penalty. Further, a delegation fromn Switzerland is here completing negotiations for an extradition treaty. Negotiations are also taking place with South East Asian countries. I hope that within a short time most of the world will be within the protective net of extradition from the point of view of being able to pursue criminals. There are some exceptions in the sense that some countries are not prepared to extradite a person who might be charged with an offence. Nevertheless, they are prepared to deal with the person in respect of that offence even though it may not have been committed in that country. So there is a guarantee across the world. Because crime is becoming so sophisticated and because it has become so internationalised, there is a real need to have up to date extradition treaties and also to have what are called mutual assistance treaties whereby one can get information, on the basis of financial transactions, that would assist in the prosecution of international crime, particularly crime relating to drug trafficking. An interesting speech on this subject has just been made by United States Attorney-General Meese, and he referred particularly to the Cayman Islands and other matters. The Australian delegation to the international conference on crime in Milan was responsible for submitting a motion, which was unanimously supported, suggesting that extradition treaties be modernised, that there be a continual exchange of information between the respective countries, and that strong support be given to mutual assistance treaties. White collar crime relates to financial transactions, and information can be obtained from tax records, banking records and the like. The United States and some other countries have the facility to gain access to those records in their own countries and therefore, from the point of view of mutual assistance, would want to have access to records in other countries where extradition treaties apply. As a matter of interest, there is such a treaty between Switzerland and the United States. I am confident that my Department is working very well to cover all the areas we can by extradition treaties. I am very anxious to support the Department in what it is doing in relation to mutual assistance treaties. The fact that the Swiss delegation is in Australia at present guarantees that we will bring to fruition successful negotiations with that country. I hope that within a short time we will be able to indicate to all Australia that we have adequate extradition treaties which guarantee that anybody who commits a crime in Australia, even if he is no longer here, can be brought back to this country to be dealt with or, alternatively, if the law is such as to permit it, can be dealt with in the country to which he has fled. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to sub-section 8 (1) of the Poultry Industry Assistance Act 1965, I present the annual report for 1984-85 on the operations of the Act. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —Pursuant to section 9 of the Medical Research Endowment Act 1937, I present the annual report of the National Health and Medical Research Council for 1984. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —For the information of honourable members, I present the text of a statement relating to the Government's response to the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory on retail trading hours in the Australian Capital Territory. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —For the information of honourable members, I present the text of a statement relating to the Government's response to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment in respect to the Abbott's booby bird on Christmas Island. The report will be presented to the Senate when it next sits. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —Pursuant to section 24 of the Australian Bicentennial Authority Act 1980, I present the fifth Australian Bicentennial Authority annual report for 1984-85. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —I do. Mr SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition may proceed. Mr HOWARD —In today's edition of the Melbourne Herald appears a lead story under the heading: `We'll cut dole: Howard'. That story purports to be a report and comment on an answer I gave yesterday at the National Farmers Federation to a question about reductions in government spending. Most of the article is unexceptionable and correctly reports and interprets what I said. However, the opening paragraph states: A coalition government would cut the dole and benefits to supporting parents, said the Opposition Leader, Mr Howard. The clear message of that is that I was saying yesterday that an Opposition coalition government would cut the level of the unemployment and supporting parents benefits. I was not saying that yesterday. I hold the view that for somebody who has to live on the unemployment benefit the existing level of it is not excessive. It would be insensitive in the extreme for anybody to argue that somebody who has to live on the unemployment benefit and has no other source of income is overpaid in anybody's language. I have never argued that and I will never argue that. I drew attention yesterday to matters relating to eligibility and liability. I drew attention to the fact that over the past 15 years 60 to 70 per cent of the rise in the social welfare bill has been due to unemployment and supporting parents benefits going up, and unless action is taken in those two areas substantial reductions in welfare spending- Mr Chynoweth —What would you do? Mr HOWARD —If the honourable member will just be patient- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that honourable members on my right do not invite the Leader of the Opposition to debate the matter. He is correcting a misrepresentation and so far he is quite within the limits of the indulgence that has been given him. Mr HOWARD —The comment I made yesterday was that 60 to 70 per cent of the rise in the social welfare bill between 1970 and 1985 has been accounted for by those two items; the supporting parents benefit and the unemployment benefit. I went on to say-I quote directly from the transcript of the answer I gave yesterday: If you are serious about substantial reductions you have to start looking at some of those areas. I said at the National Press Club several months ago, when I was Deputy Leader, that I believe that one of the things we will have to look at in our policy review process is whether some amendments to the Family Law Act might not be desirable and necessary to ensure that some of the burden now borne by the general taxpayer was shifted back to those who ought primarily to bear the burden of maintenance of people who were formerly part of their family. I said that at the National Press Club when I was Deputy Leader of the Opposition and I have no hesitation in repeating it because I think that it is a view that is held widely in the community. I went on to say: And frankly, I don't think any Coalition having the philosophy of our two parties should shirk at having a look at that. I think the general taxpayer is getting increasingly unhappy with a lot of the arrangements which exist in that area. I do not resile from that. I simply make the point that at no stage yesterday was I arguing that the level of either the unemployment benefit or the supporting parents benefit should be reduced for an eligible individual. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented? Mr COHEN —I do. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister may proceed. Mr COHEN —On 15 November an article appeared in the Australian Financial Review which attacked this Government, and me in particular, about a meeting of the Australia-Japan Business Co-operation Committee. I was asked by that Committee and by the Australian Bicentennial Authority to present to a large gathering of people-in lieu of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) who was away at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting-the concept for a national science centre. That has been under discussion for some years between the business community, the Japanese and Australian governments and the Bicentennial Authority. A video presentation was made and I introduced the whole concept. Mr Robinson wrote a very scurrilous article in the Australian Financial Review in which he gave the impression that Australia, and I in particular, was touting around the world for gifts for Australia for the ABA. I do not want to go into all of that, because of the time factor. I wrote a letter to the Australian Financial Review, which Mr Robinson footnoted. He said: The Minister denies nothing I wrote in the column. The question remains: Isn't it shameful for Australia to go around the world publicly touting for a birthday present? I think that members of parliament would be aware of the fact that in situations like this, where many countries want to make a gift to Australia-I will not mention countries or other gifts-they first come to this country and discuss with us a suitable gift, as we did in the case of the American Bicentennial Authority. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I think the Minister should get to the misrepresentation. Mr COHEN —The point is that we are not touting for gifts. We have discussed suitable gifts with countries around the world. It is a practice that has gone on for years. When the Opposition was in government it made a gift to the Americans and did exactly the same thing. Mr Tuckey-I raise a point of order relating to the procedures for publishing the daily Hansard. The Sydney Morning Herald of 21 November, in the `Stay In Touch' column on page 18, reports a matter which is not reported in Hansard. It relates to an altercation that occurred here yesterday. It quotes Mr Keating as saying: The tax package will succeed and will get through- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the honourable member not proceed with quoting what was there. I have some responsibility for matters that are included in Hansard. On this particular matter I took the decision to exclude an interjection you had made, because it was an interjection. I asked that the previous phrase also be excluded from the report of Hansard, because I felt that the statements reflected on the dignity of the Parliament; so, they were excluded. If the House disagrees with the action I have taken, I suggest that it take action against me. It is an action I took, I felt, in the best interests of the institution. Mr Tuckey-It has been reported in the Press. Mr SPEAKER —I must explain that the Press is under no threat because the matter has been reported. It was in the Hansard `green' but I felt that it was better not left in the parliamentary record. In fact, for the information of the honourable member, when the tape was listened to some of it was unintelligible. If it had not been for the fact that the Hansard writers at the table are very expert at hearing these things, it would not have been noted in the Hansard `green'. Mr Tuckey-They got it just right. Anyhow, thank you. Mr SPEAKER —I have made an explanation. If the House disagrees with me, I suggest that it take action against me. Mr Sinclair-On that same point of order, Mr Speaker: I do not disagree with your action but may I ask about the position of parliamentary privilege? While in this circumstance I totally endorse the action you have taken, I think a matter arises which affects the media and obviously others. Mr SPEAKER —I understand that. Mr Sinclair-Can you assure those concerned that parliamentary privilege will apply? Mr SPEAKER —Yes. I have preserved a copy of the Hansard `green' in case such a situation should occur. It is my belief that parliamentary privilege would apply in that instance. It was a difficult situation and honourable members will realise that I have some respect for the institution. But I also appreciate the fact that the Press, having heard it, could not have restrictions placed on it in that way. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens 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,Mr Hand,Mr Hawker,Mr McArthur,Mr Peacock and Mr Shipton. 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 Flag's Act, unless such proposed change is first voted on by the people of Australia and passed by a majority of voters in a majority of States. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and the future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That whereas the Commonwealth of Australia ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women in 1983, the Government of Victoria in passing the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 is in breach of Article 6 of the Convention which says that ``States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women''. That the Victoria Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 provides legal authority to brothel operators to traffic in and exploit the prostitution of women and to live off the earnings of prostitutes. That whereas the Federal Minister for Health has counselled citizens to shun promiscuity (The Australian 26/1/85) because of the serious and sometimes fatal health hazards, the operations of legalised brothels encourages promiscuity and the spread of diseases, including AIDS. Your petitioners therefore pray: That the Government of Australia having ratified the UN Convention on Women remain consistent in its obligations to uphold the Articles of the Convention and request the Victorian Government to immediately repeal the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr N. A. Brown,Mr Cleeland,Mr Halverson,Mr McArthur and Mr Peacock. 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 Dobie and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal system in Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Force, the State and Federal education systems, the independence of the churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children, the unborn, the handicapped, the aged and the infirm, employer and employee relationships and Australian society generally. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That your Honourable House defer debate on the Bill for twelve months and circulate the Bill for twelve months for the widest possible debate, scrutiny and discussion, and your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Fife and Mr Sinclair. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that they are opposed to the proposals contained in the Government's White Paper for the reform of the Australian Tax System in so far as they relate to the imposition of further capital gains and wealth taxes. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will call upon the Government to reject any proposal to increase the burden of capital gains and wealth taxes on the Australian people. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. 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, 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 businesses 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; 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 Cadman. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, the Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: that the recent cuts announced in the Mini-Budget to Preschools and Day Care Services are a reversal of A.L.P. policy to make child care services available to all at an affordable cost. Further, that the fee rises arising from the cuts will cause great hardship to the majority of families using these services. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House fully restores all Federal funding to children's services in Australia, and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, the Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: that the May expenditure savings which introduced funding cuts to children's services will cause hardship to many low and middle income earners. Families relying on these vital services will suffer, as will workers within the industry. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House fully restores all Federal funding to the children's services in Australia, 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 petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are greatly concerned at: (a) The ready availability of X-rated videos and other pornographic material; and (b) The increased tendency to highlight so many forms of sexual activity in the media without regard to the susceptibilities of the general public; and as a consequence, Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should take action to 1. Prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography and grossly obscene publications. 2. Require the censorship authority to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes in determining classification and suitability of films and videos to be shown to Australian audiences; and 3. Ensure greater propriety in television productions, local and overseas, telecast to Australian audiences. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Conquest. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that the Technical and Further Education Participation and Equity Programme established as the centre-piece for national youth policy, addresses the educational, social and employment needs of twenty-two thousand unemployed Australian youth. The intended 50% funding cuts will directly affect at least ten thousand already disadvantaged young people, denying them access to further education and potential employment. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: (1) That the decision to cut the Participation and Equity Programme funding be reversed. (2) That the Participation and Equity Programme be guaranteed funding for 1987, and beyond. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That we are completely dissatisfied with the frequent and substantial increase in the price of petrol and diesel fuel. 2. That we are aware that these price increases have an adverse affect on the living standards of the average Australian wage earner. 3. That increases in fuel prices add to farm costs and further reduce 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 committment 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 President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows: That the proposed introduction of compulsory identification (ID) cards should be reconsidered and rejected because the system: (a) is not a cost-effective method of reducing tax evasion and social security fraud and, to the contrary, in the form proposed will facilitate such evasion and fraud: (b) will constitute an unwarranted infringement of individual privacy by the aggregation of a wide variety of personal information of a private nature; (c) will cause a further large and costly growth in the bureaucracy and burden on the taxpayer; and (d) cannot be guaranteed against misuse for purposes other than for which their introduction is stated to be intended and in fact provide the opportunity for blackmail and other forms of misuse. And your petitioners humbly pray that the problems which identification cards are intended to reduce should be attacked by other, more effective and less obnoxious methods. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will every 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 iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray. by Mr Hawker. `For the People's Right to Peace' `For the Rights of Women and Children' `For National Independence, Disarmament and Peace' To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of citizens of Australia respectfully shows: As a part of the world wide campaign by women in the final year of the United Nations' Decade for women for `Equality, Development and Peace' (1976-1985) and in view of the grave possibility of nuclear catastrophe, the Union of Australian Women calls on the Australian Government to: intensify its efforts of nuclear disarmament, remove U.S. bases from Australian soil, keep the Pacific and Indian Oceans nuclear free. by Mr Hollis. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: We are concerned that the closure of the Enterprise Migrant Hostel will be detrimental to the long-term settlement prospects of migrants in Victoria as well as detrimental to Ethnic Communities who have settled in the Springvale area. In addition, the long-term development of commerce and industry in the area will be adversely affected. We urge the Government to reverse this decision. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows- That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: that your petitioners submit that the Government take urgent action in the matter of the complete restoration of the Highfield Estate in Stanley, Tasmania, and that all necessary funds be allocated forthwith. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that these actions be taken in order to preserve for future generations of Australians, a major and nationally significant historic site. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Miles. To the Speaker and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That whereas the Government has abolished the one hundred per cent tax deductability status previously applicable in respect of costs incurred by businesses in entertainment expenses, the actions of the Government in this regard will have significant and negative impact on business and employment in the restaurant industry. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will not proceed with the taxation measures announced on September, 19th, 1985 affecting the tax deductability status of these entertainment expenses. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Miles. 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. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This humble petition of citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: S.W.A.P.O. is recognised by the United Nations as the sole and authentic representative of the Namibian people. The situation in Namibia is of particular importance to Australians, given Australia's position as a member of the United Nations Council for Namibia-in effect a member of the UN, the government for Namibia in exile and therefore has a legal international entrusted responsibility to the people of Namibia, responsibilities which it must be prepared to take seriously in order to bring about social justice, freedom and independence for Namibia and genuine peace in that region. Therefore this humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully requests the Government to urgently initiate the following steps: 1. To fund a S.W.A.P.O. Office in Australia, such funding to continue until a free Namibia is able to establish an Embassy in Canberra. 2. That all commercial, sporting and cultural ties with the Republic of South Africa be severed forthwith. 3. That all diplomatic ties with Pretoria be severed. 4. To give decent support to S.W.A.P.O. agriculture and educational programs. And your petitioners, as duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That there is strong support for the establishment of Australia's first Arid Lands Botanic Garden on a site at Port Augusta. Such a garden will be the only facility of its type in Australia and one of only a few in the world. Australia is largely arid and South Australia is the driest state. The development of the Port Augusta Arid Lands Botanic Garden has been recommended in ``A Report on the Collection of Native Plants in Australian Botanic Gardens and Arboreta'' compiled by the Royal Australian Institute of Parks and Recreation in October 1984, a copy of which was forwarded to the Prime Minister. Benefits of the garden would include: 1. Centre for research and study of all aspects of arid land flora. 2. Provision of appropriate extension and advisory service to pastoralists, councils, settlements, mining companies and individuals in arid areas of Australia. 3. Display both native and exotic plant material. 4. Valuable educational resource at all levels. 5. Significant tourism potential. 6. Creation of employment. 7. Ideal site available at Port Augusta which is the centre for a vast area of arid Australia, and readily accessible. 8. Ideal centre for production of seed of arid land plants on a commercial basis for local and overseas markets. 9. Display of plants used by Aboriginal people in arid Australia. 10. Ideal development in which to display and demonstrate technology appropriate to arid Australia e.g. solar power, desalination, appropriate building design etc. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will take all possible measures to ensure that Australia's first ``Arid Lands Botanic Garden'' is established at Port Augusta as an urgent priority. We ask that all possible avenues of funding be investigated as this project will be a very important first for Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we, the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we deplore the proposed cut-back of funding for pre-school and child care in the mini-budget as the proposal adversely affects young families, women's employment prospects and children's development in their most formative years. We urge you to reverse proposals for cuts in children's services. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth 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 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 Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That the public at large are greatly concerned at excessive mail delays. 2. That we call on the Government to take immediate steps to rectify the service in the interests of the Australian community. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in the 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 Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: Whereas the present Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has announced its intention to present the Title Deeds to Ayers Rock in Central Australia, currently the joint property of the people of the Commonwealth to an Aboriginal Land Council on 26 October 1985, Whereas opinion polls and statements of representative groups, Members of Parliament and respected individuals show clearly that the Commonwealth Government has no mandate from the citizens of the Commonwealth to act in this manner. Whereas the present Government claims to be totally opposed to apartheid (separate development) in South Africa but is handing over Ayers Rock to an Aboriginal Council in support of a policy of apartheid (separate development) which has been shown to be detrimental to the Aboriginal people of Australia, Whereas it is pursuing this policy making it a crime for most white and many Aboriginals to enter, without permit, large areas of the Commonwealth designated apartheid (i.e. set aside for separate development), contrary to our democratic traditions and experience of freedom of movement for citizens of all racial origins within Australia. Whereas Australian citizens have no present means available to them to prevent this violation of their natural rights to unfettered common ownership of, and access to, a treasured natural asset. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Seek means available for the protection of the people's interests to prevent this outrage and preserve the democratic traditions of Australia. 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 Richmond Electorate respectfully showeth that: The proposed capital gains tax penalises small business, discourages long-term investment, hinders capital formation and will freeze existing investment patterns and limits the investors' ability to adjust to changed market conditions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Immediately abandon its illconsidered capital gains tax proposal. 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 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 per cent of nursing home patients are pensioners and the majority are now required to pay in excess of their pension for their nursing care for the very first time. Some are paying over $5 per day on top of their pension. Many are looking for cheaper nursing care that 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 Porter. 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 certain citizens of Queensland respectfully showeth: That the actions of trade unions have gone beyond their traditional goals of protecting workers' conditions and rates of pay and have reached the point where they are seriously affecting the economic health of the nation and the people. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That all Governments throughout Australia acknowledge and protect the Right of Work on behalf of all Australians. 2. That the total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamental requirement of a workable, balanced Federal system of government. 3. That all necessary steps be taken to protect the citizens of Australia from any inducement, compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade union. 4. That there should be no preference in employment for people who are members of trade unions. 5. That the supremacy of elected government over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 6. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. Petitions received. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) — Mr Speaker has received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N. A. Brown) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The implications of continued breaches of the Wages/Prices Accord. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr N. A. BROWN(Menzies)(3.07) —If ever the Government needed some encouragement to start showing some responsibility on the economy, and in particular on industrial relations, it surely must have received it yesterday with the speech made by the Secretary to the Department of the Treasury. I say that because the Secretary to the Treasury made it perfectly clear that, if the wages and prices accord is to bring anything like the economic results that the Government claims, there will have to be more vigilance shown by the Government than it has shown so far. He made it perfectly clear that, if the accord is to achieve anything like what the Government claims it will achieve, it will require heightened vigilance on the part of the accord's sponsors. Of course, we know from what was said in Question Time that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) approved the speech made by Mr Fraser so we can assume for that reason that the Treasurer, unless he was half asleep when he read the speech, is of the view that there must be heightened vigilance on the part of the sponsors of the accord. Of course, it is not surprising that Mr Fraser should have to call for more vigilance on the part of the Government or of the Australian Council of Trade Unions than either of them has shown so far. Let us dispose of the ACTU for a start because that can be done very quickly indeed. I say that because on Monday, 28 October, in the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, before Mr Commissioner Griffin, the dispute was being discussed between the Australian Paint Manufacturers Federation and the great Federated Storemen and Packers Union of Australia. In this matter concerning the claim for superannuation being bludgeoned out of employers by the Storemen and Packers Union, Mr Commissioner Griffin asked the ACTU for its view of the industrial action being taken. He said to the ACTU advocate: But surely you are not saying that the ACTU is endorsing the level of industrial action that is taking place? What did Mr Weaven, the advocate of the ACTU, say in response to that? He said: Well, why would you say surely we would not endorse workers taking action around the question of the right to choose on superannuation? Why the presumption that that is something that we would not endorse? Quite the reverse. So the ACTU advocate was asked: `Surely you don't endorse this industrial action?' He, on behalf of the ACTU, said: `Quite the reverse'. He made it perfectly plain that the ACTU is supporting industrial action in the paint industry superannuation dispute and that undoubtedly was exacerbated by the fact that in today's hearing before the Arbitration Commission the ACTU did not even turn up. That should dispose of the ACTU for a start. What about the Government? Far from showing vigilance about the enforcement of the terms of the wages and prices accord, and far from showing a responsible attitude to the disastrous results that that accord is producing, the Government has been extraordinarily lax. If ever there was an area that deserved this sharp rebuke from the Secretary to the Treasury, and now from us, it must surely be the Government's performance on the current superannuation claims by some trade unions, actively supported by the ACTU. The Opposition has specific criticisms to make of the Government in this regard and if the Government has a shred of responsibility it will answer these criticisms-fully and promptly-and it will account to the Australian people for what it is doing in this area which is now the subject of so much industrial disputation. We say that because at this stage at least two things are perfectly clear: The first is that there is a rash of irresponsible industrial action that the Government has done nothing to stop, deter or discourage. Secondly, there is utter confusion in the Government as to how these superannuation claims are to proceed. The Government has an immediate responsibility to make its position clear because it is quite clear now that at least some sections of the union movement are running out of control and are trying to bludgeon employers into superannuation agreements which are quite outside the terms of the wages and prices accord and quite inconsistent with the accord. The superannuation agreements will impose extraordinary cost burdens on the Australian economy. Not only are the trade unions engaging in that course of bludgeoning those superannuation agreements out of employers, but also in the course of doing so they are putting their fellow workers at risk and throwing some of them out of work. Clearly that is the situation. Not only will this process impose those burdens on the Australian economy but also it will give to the union movement, if it is successful in obtaining union control and union dominance of superannuation funds, excessive powers and influence over the economy. I will elaborate on that and on each of our criticisms as we call the Government to account for its conduct in respect of each of them. The first criticism is the very way in which the superannuation issue arises. It arises because of the shameful and backboneless way in which the Government agreed to the accord mark 2, which from the very beginning was an utterly irresponsible performance. As the Treasurer told us in his Budget Speech, we were faced with a depreciation of the Australian dollar and competitive benefits, according to him, which this gave to the Australian economy. He got up on Budget night and said that we must not lose our competitive edge. He said that by passing on this benefit in full wage indexation we would lose our competitive edge. He made it perfectly plain that for that reason, at least on that occasion on that night, the Government would oppose full wage indexation. But what happened? What happened was what normally happens: The real power in this Government once again got the upper hand, as it so often does, and the ACTU forced the Government into a new agreement and the Government all too willingly caved in. In this agreement the Government did three quite reckless things, and this amounts to our second criticism. In entering into that second agreement it threw away all of its bargaining power and it caved in on the October national wage case. It caved in to a 3.8 per cent national wage increase which, of course, was granted. The second thing that it did with that accord was that it threw away all of its bargaining power and it gave in on the next national wage case to be held in April. The Government said that whatever the effects of the depreciation on the consumer price index-which are undoubtedly clear and set out clearly in the accord-there will be, according to the accord, discounting only of 2 per cent, even if that means that we will lose as a result of it some part of our competitive edge. That was the second irresponsible thing the Government did. The third irresponsible thing that the Government did was to give way to a 3 per cent productivity claim by the ACTU, whether that claim for productivity could be made out or not. In all of those things the Government abrogated all of its responsibility and all of its authority as a national government. It caved in to union power once again. Finally, which brings us to the very point that we criticise today, it agreed, so far as that productivity was concerned, that that would be paid for by superannuation. The superannuation issue, which has itself given rise to so much industrial disputation, particularly in recent weeks, was conceived in the first place as part of a shameless compromise by the Government and embodied in its accord. It was further nurtured by the Government waiving, so far as it and the ACTU were concerned, any need to show the very productivity increases that would form the basis of the superannuation plans. The matter is far worse than that. Our third criticism is that the Government falsely pretended that the cost of the superannuation arrangements would not occur before 1 July next year. In fact, the Government has always maintained, as part of its great defence of the accord, that these costs would not arise before the end of this financial year. But what has happened? The Government stands by and does nothing while the superannuation claims run out of control and while the unions who are pursuing them run out of control. The Government does nothing while staring it in the face is the fact that the cost implications of the superannuation deals will occur before 1 July next year, and occur at the same time as our industry and commerce are being burdened by the recent national wage increase and all of its consequences. It is perfectly plain, whatever is put in the terms of the accord, that the cost of many of the superannuation claims now being pursued by industrial blackmail will, quite contrary to what the Government told us at the outset, have a very severe impact on this economy-and have an impact well before 1 July next year. This has been brought about by two things. It has been brought about in the first place because the Government has done nothing to advance the guidelines on which superannuation is to be given. The guidelines, it seems, are now stuck in some sort of time warp in the interdepartmental committee area-lost somewhere in the recesses of the Government. They have not even been up to the Cabinet as yet. The Government has done nothing while the superannuation claims and the pressure in support of those claims have been allowed to run rampant. Our next criticism is that the Government has stood idly by and allowed industrial pressure to be used to pursue those superannuation claims. The extraordinary claim has always been made that one of the great results of the wages and prices accord is that it has brought about a new dawn in industrial harmony. No one, most of all no one in Victoria, could conceivably believe that this is true any longer. Industrial disputes are increasing. They are clearly becoming more vicious and they are clearly affecting more innocent people. The most recent manifestation of this industrial action, which cannot be defended, is that action in pursuit of the very superannuation claims that we are talking about. The most recent manifestation of this, of course, is the extraordinary performance of the Government standing by while the Storemen and Packers Union-Mr Crean's union-throws innocent people out of work in the paint industry and in those industries that depend on its products. It does so in open defiance of the wages and prices accord and in open defiance of this whole community. No doubt the Government will say that of course it is taking action; it intervened in the Arbitration Commission today. What a pathetic and weak excuse that is. What it did in the Arbitration Commission today was to slap Mr Crean's union lightly on the knuckles and say: `Now, now, these claims that you are making and the industrial disputation in support of them are against the spirit of the wage agreement'. What a weak defence it is that the Government brings so late in the piece. The Government has stood by and it has delayed its superannuation guidelines. It has allowed industrial action by the Storemen and Packers Union to continue-with only the feeblest of protests. It has stood by while a major industry grinds to a halt and innocent workers are thrown out of work. If the accord is supposed to bring about union responsibility, the Government should act to ensure that this comes about. If it does not, the Government stands condemned. At this time on this day the Government, at least at this stage, stands condemned. It also stands further condemned for its endorsement of the clear breach of the accord in the case of action by the Transport Workers Union of Australia. That action, likewise, is to bludgeon superannuation agreements out of the transport industry. That is exactly what the Government has allowed to happen. The Government should get off its backside and at least indicate to the community and to industry and commerce the broad propositions it wants to see implemented in these superannuation claims, so that at least industry will know the parameters within which it has to negotiate and bargain. The accord says that the exceptions are isolated cases. It says that there are to be no cost increases under superannuation claims before 1 July 1986, except in isolated cases. We ask: What are these isolated cases? Is it possible that the Government did not know about them at the time the accord was entered into? If it did know about them it should be able to tell both us and industry what they are. The government should make it perfectly plain that there will be no other superannuation scheme of this sort allowed where the costs will have an impact this financial year. It should ensure that any such superannuation scheme is not in the sole control of a trade union. It should ensure that it has an independent chairman and an independent board of trustees. It should ensure that there is freedom of choice and that there is no complusion on employees. Mr Hand —Why? Mr N. A. BROWN —`Why', says the honourable member for Melbourne. We say the Government should stand up to unions and stop taking the craven, cowardly attitude it takes of allowing unions to bludgeon superannuation agreements out of industries by industrial terrorism. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Empoyment and Industrial Relations)(3.21) —We have just listened to another enormous beat-up from the Opposition, the kind of beat-up which of course we are used to hearing from it, and particularly from the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown). In listening to that speech and in listening to the normal beat-up one would never have thought that when the Opposition was in office, in the period of the Fraser Government, it was totally incapable of having a low level of industrial disputation. The level of industrial disputation under the previous Government was far higher than has occurred under the present Government, or is ever likely to occur under the present Government. That kind of reality should not disappear from the minds of people in the electorate. They will recall that when the previous Government was in power it talked big about its ability to take on the unions. The result was, of course, that we had massive industrial disputation. The average number of working days lost during the period of the Fraser Government was over three million per year. In the last 12 months to July-the most recent for which we have figures-1.2 million working days were lost due to industrial disputes; that is, about 40 per cent of the average which applied under the Fraser Government. At that Government's peak level of hopelessness, in 1981, 4.2 million working days were lost due to industrial disputes; that is, three million working days more than have occurred in the last 12 months. So we see that in terms of ability to control industrial relations, to keep industrial disputation down, this Government has performed infinitely better than the Opposition could in any year when it was in office, and indeed infinitely better than the Opposition would ever be likely to were it ever to return to office and pursue its disastrous policy of opting out, which of course would be an open recipe for mammoth industrial disputation. We will take on a debate about industrial disputation at any time because this mob of incompetents opposite could not keep industrial disputation down to anything like the level which has prevailed in the time that this Government has been in office, despite the fact that we have not relied on an economic recession to bludgeon down the workers in the way the Opposition did, trying to keep disputes down by creating unemployment. We have had a growth economy and, despite that strong growth in the economy, we have had a very low level of industrial disputes. If the Opposition were ever to get back in office, by some mammoth misfortune, we would then see applied a policy which would be bound to bring about an enormous increase in the level of industrial disputation. The Opposition's policy is a policy of opting out, of allowing controls which are there through the arbitration system to be thrown out the window, for everyone to go out and do his own thing. That situation would be an open invitation to total industrial disruption. The kinds of pressures which are now put on unions to restrain their activities, and which have been eminently successful in doing that, at least very much in relative terms, would not be there under the Opposition's system. Its system would be one of open invitation to unions to do what they could at any time to get what they could out of the system. No national wage policy would apply and no national system would prevail, on the strongest elements of the work force particularly, to curtail their behaviour and limit the level of industrial disputation. If we are going to talk about the relative benefits of governments in keeping the level of industrial disputes down-an element of policy which we regard quite highly-the people of Australia should be very much aware that they are faring infinitely better under this Government than they fared under the previous Government in that respect and, even more so, that they are faring infinitely better under this Government than they would be likely to fare if the Opposition were to get back in control as the Government in this country, because it has an industrial relations policy which is called `opting out'. It means opting out of not just the industrial relations system but opting out of economic and governmental responsibility. It means opting out of the responsibility to have a wages policy, opting out of the responsibility to control the economy other than by having a general level of economic policy which forces the economy into recession as the only means of restraining inflation and the only means of restraining industrial disputation. That is the kind of crass economic and governmental stupidity we are getting from the Opposition. Various allegations have been made in the course of this debate by the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party; as usual, totally irresponsibly made. Let me refute some of the points that have been made. He said that superannuation claims are running out of control and that the Government is conniving in them. I will come back to that point. He also said that we have been utterly reckless in regard to the accord mark 2. Let me briefly touch on that point because of the relevance of that issue to what this Government is about. Of course, it is an absurdity to argue-this point has been pretty well thrashed out in Question Time and various other debates-that the accord mark 2 is an exercise in irresponsibility. It is obviously an enormously beneficial agreement which demonstrates a flexibility in regard to wages policy which would be impossible without the accord and which enables us, without bludgeoning the economy into submission and recession, to achieve a reduction in the level of wage outcomes, which is necessary, given the devaluation, to reduce the level of inflation and to ensure that the inflationary impost brought about by devaluation does not get built in and thereby cause us to lose our competitive advantage. That agreement gives us the capacity to make that adjustment, with the 2 per cent off the next wage case and with the adjustment in relation to productivity; that is, with a delay in that case with no outcome until the end of this financial year and with a staggered implementation over the next two years. Those are very substantial concessions. Let me say in passing that the continued allegations from the Opposition that there has been some irresponsibility in regard to our competitiveness is, of course, absurd. All the indices of international competitiveness show that we are now more competitive than we have been at any time since 1971-indeed, more competitive than that. Mr Hodgman —Not true. Mr WILLIS —The honourable member for Denison ought to look at page 28 of the October Round-up of Economic Statistics, published by the Treasury. He will see there three indices of international competitiveness, all of which show that we are far more competitive now than we were at any time during the period of the Fraser Government, and indeed far more competitive than we were at any time over the past decade. The accord ensures that we will maintain that competitiveness through the adjustments which are brought about through the wages policy. The allegation that there has been some irresponsibility on our part in regard to the superannuation side is totally false and I totally reject it. What has happened in respect of superannuation is that we have, as part of that agreement, agreed with the Australian Council of Trade Unions that the outcome of the productivity case should be taken by way of superannuation and that, subject to that outcome, the figure that should be looked at is 3 per cent. That is something we would both argue for in the course of the case but the final figure will be determined by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. We said that the superannuation outcome will not be until 1 July next year. However, let me say that the agreement-there was no hiding of this at any time from the people of Australia; the Treasurer and I put out a Press release which included this agreement-contained this sentence: It is agreed that negotiations can proceed on superannuation on the above basis provided that the cost impact of new or improved arrangements, except in very isolated circumstances, will not occur before 1 July 1986. There was no attempt to hide that point. It was an element of the agreement. We are there acknowledging the fact that in very isolated circumstances there was likely to be some increase in superannuation which would come in before 1 July. Mr Hodgman —Ha, ha! Mr WILLIS —We hear stupid laughter from the other side. The reality is that superannuation has been increasing year by year over the course of the last decade or more, but it is probably in the last decade that it has started to pick up. It is something which has been occurring totally outside any wages policy which might have applied. The process of bringing superannuation into the outcome of the productivity case brings superannuation, a substantial on-cost, into the whole wage policy area. In that sense it is a very substantial achievement. Something which is running along, and has been historically virtually forever running along, totally outside wages policy is now being brought into wages policy. We hear continual screams from the other side of the House about what a terrible thing on-costs are, but the fact is that one of them, superannuation, has been out of control virtually for as long as the concept has been in existence. We are now bringing that into control and into the system of wages policy, and with the agreement of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the trade union movement as a whole. That is a substantial benefit for the control of wages generally, including on-costs, and it is something from which the economy will benefit and which the nation should welcome. It means that we have a capacity through that to ensure that we have a spread of superannuation to the rest of the work force which does not have superannuation at present and in a way that is compatible with our economic capacity. It means that one of the great inequities of our society, which is that half the work force does not have superannuation, can be overcome and done in a thoroughly responsible way. Those sections of the work force who have superannuation can improve their superannuation, particularly by way of improving their vesting rights. The outcomes of superannuation schemes are in many cases quite substantial. But that is only if those concerned reach qualification, and many people do not do that. Improvement in vesting would be very welcome to those people who are currently involved in superannuation schemes. It is a substantial social advance and it is being done as part of the concept of substantial economic responsibility and in the process of making the adjustment to wages policy, which is essential if we are to make the appropriate adjustment to wages policy for the devaluation. Mr N. A. Brown —What about the questions I put to you? How about answering them? You have two minutes to go. Mr WILLIS —Madam Deputy Speaker, will you keep this loud mouth opposite quiet? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should realise that he has already made his contribution. He is not able to have two bites. Mr WILLIS —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has made some quite false statements about the claims that are being made in regard to superannuation. There is one claim of which I am aware at present which is leading to stoppages and has created standdowns. I refer to the claim to which he referred relating to the paint industry. It is not Government policy in any way that such industrial activity should be going on. I have approached the ACTU on at least a couple of occasions to see what could be done to stop that action. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned, we appeared in the Arbitration Commission today in respect of that claim; but it should be understood that what is being claimed there is not a claim for payment of superannuation before 1 July 1986. It is a claim for superannuation payments when they commence to come into a storeman and packers scheme rather than into some other industry scheme. That is not something over which industrial action should be taking place and the Government is strongly opposed to that industrial action. But let it be understood also that it is not a breach of the agreement in the sense of a claim being made for payment prior to 1 July 1986. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was totally false in alleging that was the case. That is not the situation at all. In regard to the Transport Workers Union, in the negotiations I had with that union and with the Australian Road Transport Federation and major companies it was agreed that the scheme would not apply until 1 July 1986. In respect of some isolated cases where there were already company schemes, it may be that there would be some isolated circumstances where superannuation would come in before that time. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay) —On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth reports of the Committee for 1985 relating to the restoration of the facade of the General Post Office, Martin Place, Sydney, the construction of the Melbourne Mail Centre, Spencer and La Trobe Streets, Melbourne, and the construction of a new ward block and outpatients department, Repatriation General Hospital, Heidelberg, Victoria, respectively. Motion (by Mr Willis on behalf of Mr Young) proposed: That, unless otherwise ordered, the House shall meet for the despatch of business on the following days and at the times specified: Monday, 25 November, at 2 p.m.; Tuesday, 26 November, at 2 p.m.; Wednesday, 27 November, at 10 a.m.; Thursday, 28 November, at 10 a.m.; Friday, 29 November, at 10 a.m. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.39) —I welcome the Leader of the House (Mr Young) to the Parliament. It is nice to see him occasionally coming in to deal with motions standing in his name. They are matters with which in this instance the Opposition does not concur. I think it needs to be understood that, although we do not object to the provision for a Friday sitting, there is so much happening in the Australian economy at the moment that Opposition members are not happy that the House is rising. The whole intention of the motion is that the Parliament should conclude its 1985 sittings on Friday, 29 November. We know from the paper delivered yesterday by the Secretary to the Treasury that the Government is in disarray. We heard answers today from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) which suggested that they are acutely embarrassed by the accord; by their inability to negotiate with Simon Crean and Bill Kelty of the Australian Council of Trade Unions on adjustments to the accord; by the difficulties they have because of the problems that there obviously are in not achieving full discounting; and by the consequences yesterday of Sir Ian McLennan, the retiring Chairman of Elders IXL, commenting that the 3.8 per cent national wage decision is close to a national disaster. We also have the circumstance that the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission handed down a statement at 3 p.m. today saying that industrial action cannot be condoned and calling for all bans to be removed forthwith. We know that Simon Crean and the Federated Storemen and Packers Union are putting us into an acutely disadvantageous situation so far as the superannuation deals which have been negotiated outside the accord are concerned, and yet the Parliament is to rise. It is not satisfactory that the Government runs away from its responsibilities in matters of such prime concern. The second motion to be dealt with later relates to the fact that new business is to be introduced after 11 p.m. For some time on this side of the House we have put to the Government that it does not really matter what it does in this place, but it should recognise that the Senate will not deal with those matters it feels that it is not prepared to consider. A number of matters have been far too hastily put through this place. We had a guillotine yesterday on a range of matters embracing eleven Bills-Bills that pertain to the education of young people, Bills that should be properly considered in relation to employment opportunities. Yesterday we were told that there was not enough time; today we are told that the Government will have to introduce legislation after 11 o'clock at night and the House will rise next Friday. I know that the Leader of the House sympathises with the problems of private members in this place. I know he would like to be able to provide them with greater opportunities to debate matters of serious concern. I ask him to reconsider this hasty and peremptory motion, which really denies the people of Australia a proper opportunity to deal with matters of very serious consideration. I emphasise that there are problems in the Australian economy. We know that day by day the Government is finding it necessary to change its approach to the whole of the prices and incomes accord. It is already apparent from a speech by the Secretary to the Treasury that the Government is about to look again at the whole of its economic policy. We suspect that there could be changes not only within the accord but also affecting monetary policy. We know that interest rates are exploding. Christmas is around the corner. It is in that climate that I see it is absolutely essential that the Parliament continue sitting. I suggest to the Leader of the House that instead of proceeding with this motion it would be far better if we sat for the normal sitting hours next week; that we do not postpone the 11 o'clock rule, which of course is not just for tonight but for the balance of the sittings; and that we proceed to sit at least until the week before Christmas, when it might be more appropriate for us all to make a proper judgment on the Government's ill-considered economic measures and to comment on them. In that climate I ask the Leader of the House to exercise his customary wit and wisdom, but on this occasion towards a commonsense resolution, instead of what he has put before the House and with which I am afraid we disagree. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(3.43) —Firstly, I apologise for not being in the House at the precise moment to move the motion in my name. I was anticipating that my good friend from Wide Bay (Mr Millar) would take at least a couple of minutes to tell us about the Public Works Committee. I took my time coming up the stairs and, unfortunately, I was not here at the time it was necessary to move the motion. Because the Manager of Opposition Business (Mr Sinclair) has confused the motions, that is the days of sitting next week and the 11 o'clock rule, I inform him that I do not anticipate that it will be necessary, looking at the business for next week, for us to sit beyond 11 p.m., let alone introduce new business after 11 p.m. The difficulty we are in with the two Houses of Parliament is that the sittings of the House of Representatives are out of kilter with the Senate. As honourable members know, the Senate is not sitting this week, whereas it sat the week before last when we were not sitting. I think honourable members opposite know as well as we do that in the four days in which the Senate sat in that week it passed one Bill. We are facing the problem of legislating in this House and building up quite a bank of business that has to be dealt with by the Senate. The fact is that the Senate did not sit this week but will sit next week and the week after, apparently. That is the agreement it is now reaching. What I have attempted to do is to see that the major items of legislation are dealt with this week in the House of Representatives-I refer in particular to the education and taxation Bills-so that they will be in the Senate next week. I am trying to arrange business next week to ensure that any Ministers desirous of making statements to the House and having them dealt with can do so and that we can debate any legislation left over from this week before the House rises at the end of next week. It will not be a particularly busy week in terms of parliamentary proceedings. As to the impact on the economy of our rising next week, I do not think the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) is serious in believing that whether this House is sitting or not has too much impact on the Australian economy. We have had a normal parliamentary session. Looking outside at what has occurred, I would have thought that the Australian people would be delighted to have this Government instead of the previous Government-the Fraser-Howard-Anthony Government-which they had from 1975 and 1977. The real test, the one major issue about which people have been judging governments for the last decade, is employment, and in that field this Government has a magnificent record. It has the record of achieving almost half a million new jobs in less than three years. No one thought that was possible except those of us on this side of the House who set out to put that program in place. We will be celebrating Christmas in 1985 having achieved half a million new jobs in under three years of our first period in government. There are a lot of others matters. The Priority One: Young Australia program has now been established. Some of the wrinkles in that program have been ironed out and some 75,000 training positions will be available over the next three years for young people in our community. Jobs will be available in every aspect of community life. I do not wish to go over all the ills of the Fraser-Anthony Government. When I watched the Sunday program last weekend and witnessed the new breed of Liberal leaders rubbishing Malcolm Fraser, I must say that they looked rather puny. None of those people has been the Premier of a State. Mr Hassell from Western Australia, Mr Olsen from South Australia, Nick Greiner from New South Wales, and Jeff Kennett from Victoria were all telling the people of Australia about the second longest serving Liberal Prime Minister of this country, Malcolm, who served from 1975 to 1983-what a terrible person he was and what a lot of damage he had done-when none of those people had yet won an election. They did look rather puny in their criticism. At least they could have drawn out an issue and said: `On this we disagree with him'. But they stood there and said he was wrong on everything. We do not do that to our old leaders; we rather respect them. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! I suggest that the Minister is wandering a little far from the motion before the Chair. Mr YOUNG —Madam Deputy Speaker, I am only wandering because I was outrageously provoked by the right honourable member for New England in his deliberations. As I said last week when I was asked by honourable members from both sides of the House whether they should accept invitations for functions back in their electorates after next week, we are able to indicate that that will be the case, that we will finish next Friday, even if we have to deal with matters coming back from the Senate earlier in the week. I do not anticipate that it will be necessary for us to introduce new business after 11 o'clock. In case we do, the provision will have been made this week and honourable members opposite will have known of that arrangement as well. I anticipate we will have a very normal week's proceedings in the final week of this sitting. I look forward to honourable members coming back fresh next year. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(3.48) —I should like to identify with the remarks made by the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair). I believe that the behaviour of the Government in rushing legislation through the Parliament at the end of the session and limiting debate on it is scandalous. In fact, it is an insult to the Parliament and to the people of Australia. When we have legislation before the House it is rushed through, and I instance the Australian Bill of Rights Bill, which passed through this place in 17 hours. There was no opportunity for debate on that most fundamental and important legislation. Earlier this week we debated the Trade Practices Amendment Bill, which was put through the Parliament in one day. There is no opportunity for people to make representations to the Government and members of parliament about legislation and there is no opportunity for members to make meaningful contributions in this chamber. I say to the Leader of the House (Mr Young), rather than attempting to be funny about what happened under the Fraser Government, to address seriously the problem that arises for members on both sides of this House in making a meaningful contribution to the debate on legislation before the House. I refer not only to debate on second reading speeches but also to the detailed examination of legislation. Bills such as the Bill of Rights should have gone to a legislative committee of this Parliament, which could have examined it and taken representations from interested individuals and community groups and reported back to the Parliament. There is dissatisfaction, not only on this side of the House but also on the back bench of the Government side, because in this Parliament we have 23 new members, and that places pressure on the speaking time available. I direct the Minister's attention to that difficulty and I ask him to consider the establishment of estimates committees and legislative committees so that there can be a positive contribution by members from his own back bench and from the Opposition back bench. Because of the activities of this Government we have a farcical situation. Members on both sides of the House are making 10-minute speeches because the Whips on both sides are under great pressure to give speaking time to members; I understand that. We are not making any meaningful contribution to the debates on legislation before the House. In fact, this process is insulting to the people of Australia. We have seen only a small portion of the legislation in regard to the Government's tax package. It is being rushed through the Parliament by way of the motion that the Minister has moved today. We will have limited time for debate. But we have not yet seen the remainder of the legislation. When we do see legislation, it is rushed through, debate is limited and the guillotine is applied. But when we do not see it, we have government by decree and government by announcement. It is a totally unsatisfactory situation. I ask the Minister to address seriously the questions I have raised. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That standing order 48A (adjournment of House), as amended by sessional order and standing order 103 (11 o'clock rule) be suspended for the remainder of this period of sittings. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.52) —I do not intend to delay the House. I spoke previously in regard to both motions. I think that it is only worthwhile to comment, in response to the Leader of the House (Mr Young), that we are concerned with today, not with yesterday. I think the people of Australia have every reason to be increasingly concerned about what is happening in Australia today. I am delighted to see that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) is in the chamber. He is the one who we believe needs to answer very strongly and sincerely the concerns that the permanent head of his Department raised yesterday and the proper concerns of average Australian householders about levels of interest rates and the matters that affect them in their daily operations. We oppose this motion. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(4.53) —in reply-In relation to the queries that have been raised with regard to how long the House will sit, I indicate to the House that it is our intention to bring back members a bit earlier next year so that we can do a bit more work. Question put: That the motion (Mr Young's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 50 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Keating, P. J. Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L. Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J. Brown, John Kerin, J. C. Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E. Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V. Charles, D. E. Lee, M. Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J. Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J. Cohen, B. McLeay, LeoCross, M. D. Maher, M. J. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Martin, S. P. Darling, E. E. Mayer, H. Dawkins, J. S. Mildren, J. B. Dubois, S. G. Milton, P. Duffy, M. J. Morris, AllanDuncan, P. Morris, PeterEdwards, Ronald Mountford, J. G. Fatin, W. F. O'Keffe, N. P. Fitzgibbon, E. J. O'Neil, L. R. T. Free, R. V. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gorman, R. J. N. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W. Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H. Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R. Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C. Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E. Hollis, C. Uren. T. Howe, B. L. West, S. J. Hurford, C. J. Willis, R. Jacobi, R. Wright, K. W. Jackobsen, C. A. Young, M. J. Beale, J. H. Katter, R. C. Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B. Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S. Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J. Burr, M. A. MacKellar. M. J. R. Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T. Cameron, Donald Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Miles, C. G. Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C. Connolly, D. M. Nehl, G. B. Conquest, B. J. Porter, J. R. Cowan, D. B. Reith, P. K. Dobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C. Drummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M. Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F. Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC. Fisher, Peter Slipper, P. N. Goodluck, B. J. Smith, W. Halverson, R. G. Spender, J. M. Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Watson, DavidHodges, J. C. Webster, A. P. Hodgman, W. M. White, P. N. D. Jull, D. F. Wilson, I. B. C. Humphreys, B. C. Aldred, K. J. Price, L. R. S. Coleman, W. P. Bilney, G. N. Everingham, P. A. E. Punch, G. F. Downer, A. J. G. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(4.00) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This is the first of four Bills to amend the sales tax law. The Bills give effect to a decision announced on 5 September 1984 approving in principle the provision of inwards duty free shopping facilities at Australia's international airports. My colleague the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) in his capacity as Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce introduced complementary customs and excise amendments in this House on 13 November 1985. This Bill is one element in the legislative framework to provide exemptions from sales tax on a restricted range of goods purchased from on-airport inwards duty free shops by persons arriving in Australia on international flights. Inwards duty free shops will be warehouses licensed under the Customs Act and authorised to sell spirituous liquors, tobacco products and perfume to passengers and crew arriving on international flights after disembarkation, but before reaching the Customs barrier. The establishment of inwards duty free shopping facilities at international airports will provide a convenient alternative to overseas or in-flight purchases of tax and duty free spirituous liquor, tobacco products and perfume. The provision of these facilities at airports is expected to increase airport concession revenues by about $5m in a full year. Of the goods to be sold by inwards duty free shops, tobacco, cigarettes and cigars are presently unconditionally exempt from sales tax, but spirituous liquor is taxed at the rate of 20 per cent and perfume at the rate of 32.5 per cent, to be reduced to 30 per cent from 20 September 1985 under Bills currently before the Parliament. However, passengers and crew arriving on international flights are eligible for a sales tax exemption on certain goods imported by them, including one litre of potable alcoholic liquor and perfume to the extent to which it is not in commercial quantities. I should emphasise that the amendments contained in this Bill will not increase the level of sales tax concessions available to persons arriving from overseas. The limits I have described will continue but will apply to the aggregate of specified goods, whether purchased by the passenger overseas, in-flight or from an inwards duty free shop on arrival. There is, therefore, no cost of this measure in terms of revenue forgone. To enable inwards duty free shops to acquire their supplies free of sales tax, a further provision in the Bill will exempt from tax purchases of spirituous liquor and perfume for resale through such shops to passengers and crew arriving in Australia on international flights. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(4.04) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill, together with its two related taxing Bills, completes the sales tax package for the establishment of inwards duty free shopping facilities at international airports. As I explained a moment ago, inwards duty free shops will be accessible to passengers or crew arriving on international flights before reaching the Customs barrier. These people will be able to purchase spirituous liquor, tobacco products and perfume. In the hands of passengers and crew such goods will be exempt from sales tax if, together with similar goods imported by them, the total quantity falls within the prescribed limits I mentioned earlier. The purpose of this Bill is twofold: Firstly, to apply the sales tax law to Australian manufactured goods purchased from inwards duty free shops by disembarking passengers and crew where those goods together with goods imported are in excess of the prescribed limits. The Bill is limited to Australian manufactured goods for the reason that the existing sales tax law will apply to imported goods purchased from an inwards duty free shop and entered for home consumption by international travellers. Secondly, this Bill will extend the sales tax law to Australian manufactured goods dealt with, otherwise than by way of sale to disembarking passengers and crew, by the proprietor of an inwards duty free shop who is not registered for sales tax purposes. In situations where goods are sold to other persons or applied by the shop proprietor to his or her own use, the Bill will provide that sales tax is immediately payable by the proprietor on the goods. If such dealings occur where the proprietor is registered or required to be registered for sales tax purposes, the existing sales tax law, in conjunction with amendments of the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act just introduced, will ensure that an appropriate amount of sales tax becomes payable. Finally, I mention that, if sales tax payable under this measure is not paid on demand, the particular goods may, as can now occur under the customs law where customs duty is not paid, be seized by Customs officers, unless security for payment of the tax is given. In the event that the sales tax remains unpaid, the goods will be forfeited to the Crown. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(4.07) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This is the first of the two taxing Bills that I mentioned in introducing the Sales Tax Assessment Bill (No. 11) 1985. It is a requirement of the Constitution that a law imposing taxation shall deal only with one subject of taxation and that laws imposing customs duties and laws imposing excise duties deal only with those duties. This Bill, respecting that requirement of the Constitution, will formally impose sales tax payable under the proposed Sales Tax Assessment Act (No. 11) on goods dealt with in a taxable manner, in cases where that sales tax is technically a duty of excise. This Bill will impose sales tax at the same rates as those to be imposed by a series of sales tax Bills currently before the Parliament. An exception to this is that the Bill does not impose tax on motor vehicles covered by the Fourth or Fifth Schedule to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act as goods of that kind cannot be sold through inwards duty free shops. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(4.09) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This is the second taxing Bill associated with the introduction of inwards duty free shopping facilities at international airports. By this Bill sales tax will be formally imposed on goods dealt with in a taxable manner where the tax is neither a duty of excise nor a duty of customs. In other respects, this Bill is identical in effect with the Sales Tax Bill (No. 11A) 1985. It is not necessary to impose sales tax where the tax is technically a duty of customs as the existing sales tax law does so in relation to dealings with imported goods. An explanatory memorandum providing a detailed explanation of the provisions of each of the four Bills I have just introduced is being circulated to honourable members. I commend this Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(4.16) —I move: Customs Tariff Proposals Nos 11 to 13 (1985). The proposals I have just tabled relate to proposed alterations to the Customs Tariff Act 1982. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 11 (1985), operative on and from 2 August 1985, provide for the wool content in the pile of carpets from New Zealand eligible for duty free entry to be reduced from 80 per cent to 78 per cent by weight. This relaxation of the wool content requirement has been agreed with New Zealand under the Australia-New Zealand closer economic relations trade agreement and takes effect from the date set out in the exchange of letters between the relevant Australian and New Zealand Ministers. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 12 (1985), which will operate on and from 22 November 1985, implement the majority of the Government's decisions on the Industries Assistance Commission's report on re-import concessions. This report forms part of a series of reviews of the concessional items in the Customs Tariff Act. As a result of the Government's decisions the provisions governing the concessional entry of goods which have been exported from Australia will be considerably simplified. Goods, and parts of goods, which are returned to Australia without any change to the identity they possessed when they were exported will be admitted duty free. Unlike the current provision, there will be no requirement that the goods had not entered the commerce of another country, no time limit after which they are not eligible for duty free entry or that their ownership had not changed. The requirement that all Commonwealth taxes and charges due at the time of exportation from Australia have either been paid and not refunded or, if refunded, are paid again prior to duty free entry being granted, will however remain. A new provision will be inserted in the Customs Tariff Act to allow the duty free admission of goods repaired overseas, or replaced, under a specific warranty applicable to previously imported goods. One of the Government's decisions cannot be implemented at this stage. Goods exported for repair or renovation which cannot be performed in Australia are to be eligible for duty free entry under commercial tariff concession orders made by the Comptroller-General of Customs. Before the new provision in the Customs Tariff Act can be brought into effect new provisions need to be inserted into the Customs Act to enable commercial tariff concession order for repaired or renovated goods to be issued. Until this is done the provisions set out in current item 31 in Part I of Schedule 4 to the Customs Tariff Act will remain in place. A minor amendment is being made to the remaining provision relating to the concessional entry of goods returned to Australia after having undergone repairs of renovation overseas. Provided that the goods retain the identity they possessed when they were exported. The duty payable on their return will be assessed on the value of the repair or renovation only, at the ad valorem rate applicable to the parent goods. In line with the recommendation of the Industries Assistance Commission, this provision will not apply to goods subjected to alteration overseas. As part of its inquiry, the IAC had considered whether a general system of overseas assembly provisions should be introduced. Such provisions would provide a duty concession for imported goods according to the extent of materials or components of Australian origin incorporated in them. The Government has decided not to introduce a general system of overseas assembly provisions at this time because of the administrative costs involved and the uncertainty of any benefits which might accrue to Australia. However, the Government is aware that there could be merit in considering the use of specific overseas assembly provisions in the course of some particular industry assistance reviews in the future. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 13 (1985), operative on and from 1 December 1985, implement tariff quota provisions associated with the Government's decision in respect of the post-1984 arrangements for passenger motor vehicles. Honourable members will recall that the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Act passed in the autumn sittings contained amendments to the legislative basis for the allocation of import quotas by tender. Specifically, it enables the Minister administering the Customs Act to determine the periods of validity for which tender quota schemes are to run. The Government announced in May 1984 that single and four-year tender quota schemes were an integral part of its assistance arrangements for the passenger motor vehicle industry. As a result of the amendments to the Customs Act it is now possible to depart from a rigid 12-month period for tender quota allocations. Accordingly, a period of 14 months is being provided for the one year quota to allow a one month anticipation before the start of the year and a one month carry-over after its conclusion. Similarly, the four periods involved in the four-year tender will each run from 1 December in a year to 31 January, 14 months thereafter. The single period scheme is to operate for the period of 14 months commencing on 1 December 1985 and vehicles imported under its provisions during this period will attract a general tariff tender quota rate of 81.5 per cent. This rate represents a premium of 24 percentage points over the base quota rate. The multiple period scheme is to operate for each of four periods of 14 months commencing on 1 December 1985 and subsequently on 1 December each year up to and including 1988-the bicentennial year. Vehicles imported during these periods will attract a general tariff tender quota rate of 68.5 per cent, 11 percentage points higher than the base quota rate of 57.5 per cent. Summaries of alterations contained in these Proposals have been prepared and are being circulated for the information of honourable members. I commend the Proposals to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Debate resumed. Mr HODGES(Petrie)(4.17) —Before this debate was interrupted for the grievance debate, Question Time, et cetera, I was pointing out the failure of the Hawke socialist Government, particularly with reference to the fact that it had pursued consensus government over a period of nearly three years. I pointed out that interest rates had gone through the roof, that we had had broken promises from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and other Ministers, that we had seen petrol prices rise, that we had seen the power of the unions and, indeed, the unions taking over the nation. A few moments ago in this House the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) was boasting about the fact that fewer work days had been lost through industrial disputation. I repeat that when the unions are back at work and losing fewer days in industrial disputation it is because they are getting their own way. I repeat that point: They are getting their own way, so of course they are back at work. This Government is playing right into their hands. Mr Reith —It is appeasement. Mr HODGES —Yes, it is appeasement, as my honourable friend from Flinders has stated. In addition, I mentioned earlier that inflation in Australia is double that of our trading partners and that much play had been made by this Government of the fact that inflation is lower than it was under the Fraser Government. But, as I said, the yardstick by which inflation should be measured is that of our overseas trading partners, not what happended under previous administrations. Then I talked about deficits because under this Government the deficits in 1983-84, 1984-85 and the estimated deficit for this year are $7.96 billion, $6.746 billion and $4.919 billion. I pointed out that this was almost $20 billion in three years. We are deeply in debt and living in a false world, a fool's paradise. All these indicators confirm that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has the economy in a mess. Crean and Kelty and the unions are in control without having hold of the reins. The so-called world's best Treasurer is in fact being shown up as the world's worst Treasurer. His stock approach in this House and around the nation is vitriol and ridicule. He ridicules the Opposition and pours out vitriol at every opportunity. He was doing it again in this House at Question Time today. That approach gets him applause from the incompetents behind him. However, it is wearing thin in the broader community. If Government members move out into their electorates they will begin to realise this. It is my view that the bravado that we are seeing from the Treasurer and the Prime Minister is only a facade. As one commentator put it recently, in reality the Treasurer is wetting himself about the state of the economy. This invective, vitriol and ridicule from the Treasurer and the Prime Minister in my view is confirmation that they are in trouble. It is a government on the run; a government in trouble. It has lost its calm and cool; it is rattled and irrational. I turn finally to the question of the entertainment tax, which is causing great concern in all corners of the nation. It severely affects the employment and profitability of many people in the restaurant and catering industry. Entertainment expenses, which were tax deductible, have become part and parcel of normal business expenses. The Government knows it, we on this side of the House know it and the general community knows it. The Treasurer admits that there are genuine business entertainment expenses, yet he is virtually stopping the lot because he says that it is too hard for the Commissioner of Taxation to administer them. What rubbish that is. The Income Tax Assessment Act is complex. Other areas are difficult to administer. Everyone admits to some abuses of the system. I doubt whether there is one law or system where there are not some abuses. The Opposition says that the Government should tighten up the system and eliminate the abuses. The Treasurer's stubbornness on this issue is costing thousands of jobs-jobs that members on the Government side purport to be interested in. They ought to talk to some of the people who are losing their jobs and who have already lost them. The measure is costing thousands of jobs in the restaurant and catering industry and the Treasurer's stubbornness is sending restaurateurs broke. It is easy to see that the Treasurer does not have half a million dollars invested in a restaurant. If he had, this decision probably would not have been taken. There is a fundamental lesson to be learnt in the whole exercise. Governments of any political persuasion must not change rules suddenly. It is morally wrong that a situation has developed in this nation in which successive governments, of both political persuasions, over decades have allowed the restaurant and catering industry to develop as it has, yet, overnight, this Government has seen fit to change the ground rules. It is less than satisfactory and I hope that the matter can be rectified. I know that the future Howard Liberal-National Party Government will rectify it. Mr DUNCAN(Makin)(4.24) —I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. I want to direct my comments principally to the Social Security (Poverty Traps Reduction) Bill. I think most of the other issues in relation to taxation have been dealt with adequately by others and I do not want to take much of the time of the House this afternoon. However, I want to say a couple of things before the main substance of my comments, about the suggestion of the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) that many jobs will be lost through the loss of tax deductibility of entertainment expenses. Crocodile tears have been cried over this matter. We never hear anybody on the Opposition benches suggest that the cost to ordinary workers of getting to and from work should be made a tax deduction. The first reason is that the people in the Liberal and National parties do not care much about ordinary working people anyway. The second reason is a very good one. Although such a deduction would be perfectly legitimate in that it is impossible for those people to earn income without expending that amount of money each day, it would be impossible for the Australian Taxation Office to make adjustments for how much of the cost of running a car related to the cost of getting to work and home again and the like. It is impossible to allow such deductions and they are not allowed. We do not hear members of the Opposition speaking on behalf of ordinary working people and making this point. They speak only on behalf of their business associates who are squealing at the moment because they have lost their free lunches, a rort that has been around for so long-as the honourable member said, we all know about it- Mr Hodges —Go and talk to the chefs in the industry. Mr DUNCAN —The honourable member might like to reflect for a moment on the fact that with the cutting out of this tax deduction people such as he will probably be able to create quite a lot of employment in the tailoring industry. There is no doubt that trousers will have to be taken in and such people will no doubt create a lot of business and employment for people who are in that industry. I do not think there is any cause for the honourable member to be worried about a loss of employment. I will deal with the abolition by the Government of poverty traps. There is no doubt that the Social Security (Poverty Traps Reduction) Bill is a very significant piece of legislation. It is an attack on those parts of the social security system which in the past have led to poverty traps for pensioners and others who are in receipt of social security benefits. I have been aware for some years of the effect of some government programs on disadvantaged people-the very people whom those programs are supposed to be helping. There are two major ways in which poverty traps have occurred in the past. The first is that the indexation of pensions and social security payments did not include the indexation of allowances which went with them or the income free areas which enabled pensioners to earn a little extra cash. The second reason is that the tax system and the social security system have operated as two separate systems. It did not seem that the two could be co-ordinated even though it has been obvious for many years that the interaction between the two has disadvantaged many pensioners. The Government has recognised these pro- blems. This Bill is designed to alleviate some of the effects of poverty traps by reducing the effective marginal rates of taxation which pensioners pay if they earn a little extra to help them survive. It has been particularly iniquitous that the effective marginal tax rate for pensioners in this situation has been higher than the highest income earners have had to pay. Throughout the whole tax debate we have had to listen to those opposite and their constituency peddle some of the most self-interested and selfish claptrap in relation to their tax commitments. In no case have high income earners had to pay an effective tax rate of more than about 30 per cent. All those howling about the 60c in the dollar tax rate conveniently forget the fact that this rate does not affect income below $35,000 per annum, that all income below this figure is progressively taxed at lower rates, that the income threshold applies and that many of these people avoid their tax wherever possible. Pensioners have not been so lucky. Meredith Edwards, in a very useful paper entitled `Income Tests, Work Incentives and Effective Marginal Tax Rates', illustrated forcefully the disgraceful effect of policies which withdraw benefits from pensioners. In some cases, where the care of children is involved, and effective marginal tax rate of 132.5 per cent applies. In many cases the effective rate is around 60 per cent. The Government has recognised this and the taxation reforms which will come into effect in November 1986 will address the problem of poverty traps. Specifically, the measures in this Bill will increase from $30 to $40 a week for single pensioners and $50 to $70 a week for couples the amount pensioners can earn before they are affected by the income test. Secondly, they will double from $6 to $12 a week per child the additional allowable income for pensioners with children. Thirdly, they will abolish the very strict separate income test for rent assistance, which will now simply be added to payments and be subject to the normal income test. This means that single pensioners with incomes above $40 a week will receive an extra $5 a week in their pensions and couples with incomes above $70 a week will receive $10 extra in their pensions. Pensioners with one dependent child can earn an extra $52 a week without having their pensions reduced. This means that pensioners with one dependent child can earn $52 a week without having their pension reduced. It means that pensioners now receiving a part rate of rent assistance will be eligible for the maximum rate, and that others renting privately who satisfy the rent test will become eligible for some or all of the rent assistance. These changes will benefit many people in Makin and elsewhere. Since I have been a member of this House, I have continually expressed my concern to the Government and I am pleased that my representations have paid dividends. I have made many representations to Ministers about these very problems. Many of my constituents, residents of the north-eastern suburbs of Adelaide from Salisbury to Tea Tree Gully, will benefit from these changes. While these changes are very welcome, they are also long overdue. According to the Social Policy Research Unit, which updates the poverty line introduced by the Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty, three million people in Australia are living in poverty. This is a disgraceful and unacceptable situation. The fact is that in the seven years of office of the Fraser Government the situation declined steadily. The economic policies of the Liberal and National parties did nothing for this country. They certainly did nothing for pensioners, for the unemployed and for low income earners, all of whom suffered the full force of the redistribution away from them to the rich that was so much a part of Fraserism. They are policies the Howard Liberals are putting forward again. Twice the electorate has rejected them; twice Australians have shown that they have the good sense not to forget the pensioners. Yet they are being asked to accept more of the same at a time when Australia's prosperity is again increasing, when the Labor Government's policies are correcting these injustices of the selfishness and self-interest of Treasurer Howard. Now he again has the cheek and temerity to put forward these very policies which so disadvantaged pensioners and other poorer sections of the community throughout the seven years of Fraserism. We simply cannot allow those opposite to again be in a position to jeopardise Australian living standards. This attack on poverty traps-traps which unnecessarily meant that many pensioners suffered-is welcome if overdue. We should all be aware that the effect of the welfare state and the progressive tax system that we are introducing will be a redistribution of the wealth of this country towards those at the poorer end of the income scale. This is a necessary and worthwhile reform. It is also why Liberal and National Party members are so opposed to reform. It is those with the highest incomes, those with the most wealth, who do not want redistribution to occur. The only poverty members of the Opposition have experienced is poverty of intellect, poverty of recognition of the real situation of at least three million Australians who live below the poverty line. For 10 years after the report of the Henderson Commission, conservative politicians ignored the data which pinpointed the deficiencies in our social security and taxation systems which led to poverty traps. For that selfishness, pensioners have fallen further and further behind in the race to survive with dignity, and without charity. The inaction of the conservatives was in fact an attack on the living standards of the most needy in our community. This Bill changes that. The package of which it is part will benefit all Australians. This attack on poverty traps will benefit pensioners and their dependants. I commend the Bill and hope that it passes through the House unanimously. Mr REITH(Flinders)(4.34) —I listened with interest to the contribution of the honourable member for Makin (Mr Duncan). As could be expected from a Socialist Left South Australian, it was laced with the politics of envy and lots of rhetoric about the rights of workers. He omitted to refer to the jobs being lost in South Australia as a result of this taxation and social security legislation-the jobs in the car industry and the tourist and restaurant industries. The acronym `RATS' is short for reform of the Australian taxation system but I think it will become better known as `retrograde attack on taxpayers and small business'. I have not looked carefully at the avalanche of Bills that have been introduced because there are hundreds of pages and we have had only a few days to look at the fine print. It is a classic case of legislation by attrition. Another reason why I have not looked at all of the fine print is that we do not really know, any more than does the Government, what the final package will be. The tax cart has returned from the wrecker's yard. Do honourable members remember the Taxation Summit? The Treasurer (Mr Keating) was going to give us the consumption tax and option C. He said: If we do not as a nation, adopt this proposal, then you won't see significant reform in this country in taxation for the balance of this century. He said that he was no shrinking violet and that, if he could not get his way, what was the point of somebody of his calibre staying in politics. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was on and off the tax cart up to and during the Summit until in a backroom deal with the trade union movement he dumped the cart-with the Treasurer still in it. Nothing has changed. Even this week, one day the Prime Minister says that the package will not change and the next day we hear of even more backroom deals. There is a sniff of grapeshot in the air but the ones who are in the firing line are the businesses and the employees around the country who will be losing their jobs as a result of Labor's attack on free enterprise. Like last time, I dare say we will have some leaks out of the Treasurer's office suggesting that the Prime Minister should not cave in again. It may be an interesting little power play between the Treasurer and the Prime Minister. The handling of this legislation is not an isolated case of the Government riding roughshod over the Parliament. Last week the Government provided only one day for us to discuss the Australian Bill of Rights Bill. Last night the guillotine was out and in the middle of the night we had 1 1/2 hours to discuss Labor's plans to close down the non-government schools sector. But it is more than just the Government being in a mess; there is an arrogance about it all. The Press Gallery fawns over the Treasurer, saying that his contemptuous treatment of the Opposition is good politics, that he performs well at Question Time and that the Government is on top. In my opinion the Treasurer demeans this Parliament with the sort of language and the sort of contempt that he exhibited today. I think it is all wearing a bit thin. It is not good enough. When restaurateurs have to sack people because of the Government's proposals to tax genuine business expenses and the Treasurer dismisses their concerns, it makes me wonder what is happening to representative democracy. The Government came to office on the promise of a regime of consultation and consensus. Instead, people with genuine concerns get wiped as living off the earnings. I think that is outrageous and it is wrong. The whole question of entertainment expenses is quite simple. If one spends money to earn income it must be deductible as a matter of principle. Just because the Australian Taxation Office finds it hard to administer them does not mean that we throw the baby out with the bath water. There is no more to it than that, and the Government knows it. The Government, in contrast to its treatment of businesses small and large-the wealth creators-has made special provision for the trade union movement. A fringe benefit available under an award will be exempt. Once again, instead of government for all Australians, we see an example of the preferential treatment that the Government constantly gives to the trade union movement. No wonder Mr Bernie Fraser, the head of the Treasury, had to warn the Government publicly yesterday that its high interest rate policy, which is a requirement of the Australian Labor Party-Australian Council of Trade Unions accord, could not last long before the country would go down the drain. But the warning will go unheeded and Labor's policy of subservience and appeasement will drag us all down and, as happened in 1975, our job will be to pick up the pieces. The relevance of the general economic situation is that the health of the economy will determine whether the Government goes through with the tax cuts. As the economy falls in a heap, the Government's revenue will be jeopardised and its whole strategy will be in tatters. High interest rates are choking off the Government's debt-sponsored economic growth and they will have to be kept high to stablise the Australian dollar, which has been slashed in price because the world's financial community has told us that we are making a mess of our economy. It is fast becoming clear that the economy is on the brink. Far from getting the fundamentals right, the Government's trade union sponsorship will continue to prevent it from realising that the day it floated the exchange rate was the day that it had to face what is, for the Government, the impossible-the need for a flexible labour market. It is impossible because it would erode the Government's narrow political foundation-the trade union movement. My expectation is that by 1987 when the tax cuts are supposed to start they will have either disappeared through inflation or been altogether withdrawn. The Government's recipe for an expanding economic cake has the wrong ingredients. It just will not work. Its agenda is wrong. We do not want more taxes, we want fewer taxes. We do not want taxes that will cost jobs in the tourist industry; we want to encourage enterprise and jobs. We do not want capital taxes. Australia is a young country. We need capital. We want to attract capital and provide incentives for people to take a risk, make a profit, and create wealth and jobs. The Australian dollar is taking a thrashing. Every time the Treasurer goes overseas it drops a bit further. We need to encourage our export industries, not tax them, as this proposal taxes our rural and mining industries that earn foreign exchange. We want to encourage water conservation, not deter it. I would have thought that those on the other side who enjoyed the benfits of the drought that precipitated the Fraser Government's decline would have been in favour of water conservation. In fact, the breaking of the drought was probably one of the major factors that kept the Government in power thorugh 1984 and the election. We want to encourage employment, not place a de facto payroll tax on it, as these Bills do. We want to encourage self-provision, not tax it, as Labor has done with superannuation. By way of contrast to Labor's anti-business tax proposals, the Opposition's policies are part of a coherent package. We are committed to, firstly, reducing expenditure. Let us face it; unless this is done, it is very much a matter of shifting chairs on the Titanic. Secondly, we are committed to gradual and predictable changes to the indirect base to allow significant cuts in income tax. Thirdly, we are committed to support for families through income splitting and a tax rebate for child care expenses. I do not disagree with everything the Labor Party proposes and does, but I think we need to look at this package as a whole, as it is being debated and rammed through the Parliament today. The thrust of the package before us is anti-jobs and anti-business. It fails to provide any tangible relief from more and more taxes imposed by the highest spending, highest taxing, highest borrowing government in 50 years. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(4.43) —I wish to address myself in this debate on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) and cognate Bills to the issue of taxation and the non-deductibility of entertainment expenses. In recent weeks I have been very closely involved in discussions with the restaurant industry in Canberra. Many wild claims have been made concerning the impact of the Government's tax package on the industry. One meeting I attended recently began with claims that 10,000 jobs would be lost. As the meeting progressed the figure crept up to 20,000. By the end of the meeting the economy was on the verge of collapse, with some 30,000 jobs being destroyed by the Government. Mr Porter —Hear, hear! Mrs KELLY —The honourable member says `Hear, hear!'. I would like to take this issue out of the emotionalism of the political scene, put the figures to some rigorous analysis, and look, for a change, at the facts. The National Restaurant Catering Association of Australia, in a submission to the Government, claimed that restaurant turnover would be reduced by $200m and that this would lead to a loss of 10,500 full time jobs. The Association did not provide any evidence to support this figure of $200m. The Association translated the decline in sales into lost payroll hours at the award rate. It reckoned that this led to an estimated 29 million payroll hours being lost, or 10,500 full time positions. That is the accusation the Association has made. The Government estimates that the initial impact on sales will be significant but that the upper limit will be about $200m-that will be the worst outcome on the upper boundary of the figure. The National Restaurant and Catering Association's estimate of lost payroll hours is, therefore, very deceitful-I suppose bodgie is a charitable way of expressing it. The Association made a number of static assumptions concerning labour intensity and the average wage per hour which are very dubious. The Australian Bureau of Statistics' data on the restaurant and cafe industry provides a more balanced picture of the possible effects of the tax package. For example, the National Restaurant and Catering Association claims a labour intensity of 80 per cent in the industry. The Australian Bureau of Statistics puts the figure at 27 per cent. When I had looked at this data I decided to check it out for myself. I rang a number of restaurants and asked them their views on the percentage figure. The figure I was given varied between 25 and 35 per cent, but it was nowhere near the 80 per cent which was presented by the National Restaurant and Catering Association. The National Restaurant and Catering Association also stated that the average wage per hour is $5.48, but this ignores many factors such as penalty rates. According to the ABS, a much more realistic figure would be an average hourly direct wage cost of $8. Working from this more soundly based figure, a final job loss figure of 3,400 full time jobs, increasing to 3,700 if the component for part time jobs is included. Those are the more realistic parameters at which we are looking. When we look at what is happening today, rather than take on board all these exaggerated figures put out by the industry, let us look at the impact as we see it coming through from the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. The Department has provided its figures from two sources. One is from Commonwealth Employment Service registrations of job vacancies and the other is from newspaper vacancies. Those figures show that while seasonal factors no doubt must be taken into account, it is clear that nation-wide the number of vacancies for skilled positions in the restaurant industry, particularly for chefs and cooks, has increased significantly since 19 September. I repeat that: The number of vacancies has increased since 19 September, not decreased, as the industry has claimed. In fact, the CES advises that there is no evidence of mass retrenchments or large numbers of job seekers registering with the CES in this area. It is claimed that there are still difficulties in satisfying employer requirements for skilled staff in many occupations in the industry. Those are the facts of the matter. Let us take the emotionalism out of it and look at the facts. The industry claims that in Queensland alone there will be 1,500 job losses. By contrast, the Brisbane CES hospitality employment service is aware of only two retrenchments to date which appear to be attributable to the 19 September statement. That office advises that employers are still lodging vacancies at an unprecedented level. Requests for overseas recruitment are still being received and specialist CES hospitality services are continuing to experience difficulties in filling vacancies for skilled workers in the industry. In New South Wales, a survey of 24 CES offices revealed no identifiable increases in registrations of unemployment, and only three cases of retrenchments in the industry were identified. Recorded sub-division 92 notifications-that is one of the major categories covering the industry-increased in New South Wales by 140 per cent between October 1984 and October 1985. So despite all the claims of dire consequences the facts are, from the CES figures, that they are not showing up. In the Australian Capital Territory I was told of the dire consequences that would flow from the Government's proposal. I was told that definitely there would be great retrenchments in the industry. The employers in the area said to me: `What are we going to do with these unemployed people? Shall I send them to your office?' I said: `Send them to my office'. The next day I received calls all right, but they were not from people who were unemployed; they were from owners and managers of restaurants who said: `If anybody rings your office and says that they are unemployed in the hospitality industry, send them to me, because I am desperate for staff'. A friend of mine who runs a restaurant in Canberra put an advertisement for a chef in the newspaper two weeks ago and received one reply. People are just desperate for staff in this area. All these gloomy-- Mr Porter —Is there any unemployment here? Mrs KELLY —There is very limited unemployment here, and the reason is, of course, the successful policies of this Government. The problems we are having in the hospitality areas show when we cannot get enough staff to meet the demand. So gloomy forecasts on the impact this measure will have are based on a belief that the market will not change under new circumstances. However, I think that the market will adjust. A number of factors need to be taken into consideration. Firstly, the decline in demand from business will, in accordance with most normal supply and demand mechanisms, most likely result in some fall in average prices charged. The restaurants that have adjusted to that fact are doing very well. Secondly, given that the revenue from the removal of the deduction for entertainment expenses will directly fund a tax cut, people will have more money in their pockets. They will have at least $15 more a week in their pockets, and with that money they will have more opportunities to spend it in restaurants. There is no doubt that the market will have to adjust. Not everyone will go to the most expensive restaurants. If honourable members opposite should ask people in the industry who cater for the cheaper market, or the middle range, how their business is doing they will tell them they are doing well. If honourable members try to get a restaurant booking in this city on a Thursday, Friday or Saturday night they will have real trouble. The same applies to capital cities throughout this country. Another point which has been made in this emotional debate is that the Government is not legislating to stop people eating in restaurants. That is not what this legislation is about at all. People can still go to restaurants if they want to. All we are saying to these people is: `No longer will the Australian taxpayer subsidise your lunch'. If the lunch will benefit business the people concerned will still eat in restaurants. The cost of the meal will be a minor part of the contribution to a business deal. People will use it as part of their company expenses and will pay tax on it. They will accept it as a legitimate expense. Mr Porter —They will have to. Mrs KELLY —Of course they will have to, but for too long they have not. For too long the ordinary Australian taxpayer has been paying for it. The final point I want to make-I suppose it is an appropriate way of putting it-is that the Opposition really wants to have its cake and eat it too. It says: `People can have their tax deduction. That is not a problem. We can have tax reform but no money is being gained from increased revenue to pay for it'. How would the Opposition achieve the revenue required to bring about tax reform? Mr Porter —Cut expenditure. Mrs KELLY —The Opposition has tried that before but it did not work too well in the Lynch razor gang exercise. The revenue gained from making people pay tax on the free lunch is going towards tax reform, towards ensuring that the Australian taxpayer will get a fair and equitable deal. No longer will we have a situation where the great majority of Australian workers are subsidising the minority who have the free lunch. The whole aim of this exercise is to ensure a fairer tax system. We can no longer allow a tax system which encourages people to spend their money in ways which merely reduce their tax as this reduces the efficiency of the economy and causes it to grow more slowly than it otherwise would. I believe that the Australian community will give this tax reform package great support. In particular, it will support the proposal which ensures that no longer will the Australian taxpayer be subsidising some people's free meals. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(4.54) —Members in this House, like all Australians, have recognised that the tax system is in need of fundamental reform. On this side of the House there is a genuine recognition that there is a need to remove the incentive for tax avoidance and evasion which is a direct result of an excessive reliance on income tax, a recognition that the disincentive effects on enterprise and commercial initiative must be removed. If one listens to the Treasurer (Mr Keating), or the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in his more lucid moments, these views seem to be shared. Yet the Australian Labor Party has now presented us with a tax reform package which many Australians, including myself, believe is a total failure. It is a total failure because it will achieve none of the objectives of tax reform. It is an attack on all people concerned with entrepreneurship, taking risks and relying on their own initiative and ideas. The great paradox of this Government's approach to tax reform is that, in its rush to appear to be treating every group fairly, it has diminished incentives and the economy's capacity to generate the wealth needed to be fair to everyone. After all the talk, the summits and the white papers the final result is the re-emegence of the old Labor Party philosophy, that is, the party with more taxes, the party of higher taxes, the party of envy and the party against business. It is the party which supports high interest rates, record government deficits and overseas trading deficits. Labor's tax package will do the following: It will impose a capital gains tax and a fringe benefit tax and will quarantine farm income. The Labor Party does not understand the rural sector. The tax package will abolish negative gearing and greatly increase the tax burden on the corporate sector. It proposes a short sighted foreign tax credit system. And for what? It is so that it can make the marginal tax rate for most taxpayers 50 per cent. Let us not kid ourselves. Without tax indexation this is the sure result of Labor's so-called reforms. Many of my colleagues have instanced in this debate, and publicly in the wider arena, that Labor's tax package is an appalling attack on rural Australia and business. Mr Nehl —A recipe for disaster. Mr McVEIGH —As the honourable member for Cowper says, it is a recipe for absolute and total disaster. The tax reforms occur in an environment where private enterprise has already been squeezed harder and harder. Many in the National and Liberal parties believe that it should be opposed as a package. This is much too high a price to pay for tax cuts which will be short term and, in the end, illusory. They are like the trojan horse inside the walls of free enterprise. Let me turn to some of the specific measures contained in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3). The denial of entertainment expenses, genuinely and necessarily incurred, is utterly wrong and, in the long term, will be disastrous. The Labor Party says that this is justified in the name of administrative simplicity, but at what cost? It will cause considerable hardship and introduce a new set of distortions into the taxation system. Businesses and individuals which necessarily incur entertainment expenses will face higher costs. What are those costs? There will be fewer jobs, thus making us uncompetitive in world markets and look ridiculous. The disallowance of entertainment expenses will push the restaurant industry back into the cash economy. We are trying to avoid that so all people pay their just share of taxation. Payments by credit card normally ensured accurate reporting of gross income. With the likelihood of more cash payments, rather than credit card payments, under-reporting of income and inaccurate bookkeeping will be more prevalent. Clearly, businesses which must incur substantial expenditure on entertainment, as well as the restaurant industry which provides it, will be unfairly penalised. Rather than making reason- able efforts to eliminate abuses in the system, the Treasurer has taken an axe to the so-called business lunch. Let me tell the Treasurer who will really suffer. I hope he listens. He comes into this place each Question Time, very arrogantly, and he will not listen. Pride comes before every fall. The people who will really suffer are all those thousands of ordinary Australians and businessmen who work in restaurants throughout the country. A survey by BIS-Shrapnel Pty Ltd estimates that 18,000 Australians can expect to lose their jobs. The survey also demolishes the Government's prediction that the net gain to revenue from the proposal to disallow all entertainment expenses would be $310m. BIS-Shrapnel predicts that it will be only $79m. Furthermore, the spin-off effect will have a devastating impact not only on restaurants but on the hospitality industry in general. Businesses that supply food, liquor, laundry, transport and other services to the accomodation and convention trade also will suffer. There is no logic whatsoever in the disallowance of legitimate entertainment expenses. It wrongly attacks the restaurant industry, which already is often characterised by low levels of profitability and high instances of bankruptcy. Yet, it is also an industry that is a major employer of youth, unskilled and semi-skilled workers and is a vital component of Australia's growing tourism industry. Another fatal flaw in this tax package is the fact that it does not address government expenditure. What Labor refuses to grasp is that genuine tax reform cannot occur without controlling government expenditure. But obviously that is far too hard for the Labor socalists to tackle. In 1984-85, government in this country took more that 44 per cent of the community's resources. Australians are now working more and more for a Government which should be working for them. This Hawke-Keating Government should be condemned for expecting community support for its so-called tax reform, when it does not have the intestinal fortitude and refuses to reform itself. This Government has promised tax cuts. With every passing day, the likelihood of it being able to deliver on that promise is diminished. Record rates of interest, rising inflation, a ballooning current account deficit, a massive increase in foreign debt, the growth of on-costs and excessive wages growth are all threatening the Australian economy as we have never seen before. In dangling the prospect of tax cuts in front of the electorate, the Government was gambling on the well-being of the Australian economy. It is becoming clearer by the day that the Government has lost that gamble. This package reflects the needs of a Government desperate for revenue in the short term. Tragically, it is doing so at the expense of genuine tax reform and long term solutions. This Government has sought to camouflage this tax package in the rhetoric of fairness and, in some cases, the prospective nature of the new taxes. This must not be allowed to disguise the fact that this is a fundamental attack on incentive and a further tightening of the screws on those who work, those who produce and those who create jobs. I emphasise and repeat what has been said on many occasions by those of us who sit on this side of the Parliament: On our return to power after the next election we will repeal any piece of legislation which deals with capital gains tax. We will institute legislation which will give the farmers and small business people of Australia a fair go. We will ensure that those who are prepared to work will be adequately compensated for that hard work, for the risks that they have taken and for the enormous benefits they bring to this country. This legislation is bad legislation. When it was introduced on 17 September I indicated firmly and squarely where I stood. I am totally opposed to this package. I do not believe that we should be endeavouring to make bad legislation better. I will not vote in any way whatsoever in support of this legislation. I will tell people firmly, clearly and squarely that it is a very bad piece of legislation. If this Government runs its full term, Australia will be in a very desperate financial position at the end of that time. There is nothing wrong with Australia at the present time that a bit of incentive to produce will not cure. It will not cure all the evils, but the greatest reform any government can give to Australia-to the people who are living at present and to the generations who will follow-is to have a bit of courage and to grasp the measure which will solve the problem; that is, simply to cut government expenditure and get government out of the lives of people. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(5.06) —I appreciate the task of the Opposition within our Westminster-type of parliamentary system is, as the term suggests, to oppose. It is not for me to stop Opposition members opposing, as we have heard Opposition speakers do. But they also have a responsibility to weigh up the actions of government and to make judgments for the benefit of the people they represent. It might be said that some of them have been doing that. The Opposition has a role to monitor the activities of government and an obligation to expose the deficiencies in government programs. This Opposition also has a responsibility to present alternatives to Government policy. I do not believe that that has been happening. It is also required to be constructive in its criticism and that has not been happening. The Opposition certainly is carrying out the role of an opposition in opposing everything that comes before this chamber, not just in this debate but in debate after debate throughout the year. The Liberal-National Party Opposition in this chamber has failed to carry out the other responsibilities of presenting alternatives or being constructive in the things it has to say. We saw the other day that it opposed the trade promotion provisions of legislation designed to promote Australian trade. It opposed the consumer protection legislation and now it is opposing measures to reduce further the tax rorts and to try to remove the tax shelters. The honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh) has said he intends to oppose this legislation. He is saying that he opposes the removal of the poverty traps that have plagued the unfortunate in our community. I would like to see him vote against that and let the pensioners of his electorate understand what he is doing when he says that he is opposed to those pensioners, particularly those who have children being able to earn more. I suggest that the honourable member for Groom ought to reconsider his position and think through what are very positive measures being brought forward by the government today instead of presenting what has been a picture of doom and gloom over every aspect of this Government and our nation. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has very clearly presented to this chamber major measures that will benefit every Australian. The honourable member for Groom said that this legislation will be a major revenue measure for the Government. That is not true, because this is revenue neutral. In other words, the money raised will be spent for the benefit of the Australian people. There is some conflict in what the honourable member said about capital gains tax. The Opposition spokesperson in the Senate has said that the Opposition would keep a capital gains tax and enforce the existing capital gains measures which the honourable member says would have a very serious effect on those on the land. The Australian electorate will consider all those matters and it will think back to what took place under the previous Government-the economic stagnation, the debilitating wage-price spirals, double digit inflation and double digit unemployment, nationwide industrial dislocation and disharmony, escalation in real unit labour costs and unprecedented business bankruptcies. That was coupled with a period of tax avoidance and evasion and the use of schemes that I believe would have encouraged Al Capone to give up bootlegging and running the numbers. He would have made much more money following the Liberal and National policies on tax avoidance and evasion. This Government has made tough decisions. It has been prepared to address the anomalies, to remove the rorts that prevailed and to legislate to make the taxation laws of this country fair and just. That is in sharp contrast with the approach, the policies and previous actions of the National and Liberal parties. I welcome the action taken by this Government to overcome and address the poverty traps that exist and to increase the rights of pensioners to earn more. A single pensioner will be able to earn an extra $10 a week and a married pensioner couple $20 a week. I welcome the decision to abolish the separate income test on rent assistance. This could mean some $15 a week for about 300,000 pensioners across Australia. As I have mentioned, we have increased the amount that pensioners with children can earn. There are some other significant changes, the first being an increase in the tax threshold which from 1 September 1986 will be raised from $4,595 a year to $5,100 a year. The provisional tax exemption limit will be raised from $1,000 to $2,000. Both these measures have been applauded but the honourable member for Groom says that he intends to oppose them. He does not want the pensioners to benefit from these changes. In recent years thousands of pensioners have found themselves paying provisional tax because they just happened to earn that little bit extra of interest on their savings. If they earned more than $1,000 above their pension, they had to pay provisional tax. It was iniquitous. It was wrong. They were not prepared for it and had not put the money away. It was confusing and traumatic. But the honourable member for Groom and the National Party say that they will oppose this measure. Let shame be upon them and let every pensioner who will now benefit from that new provision speak out against the National Party. The law should be changed. No pensioner should have to pay provisional tax. I would like to see a further change in the law so that where a person's main income source is a pension, he ought not to have to pay provisional tax simply because he has some investments. A pensioner who sells his or her home today may get $50,000, $60,000 or $70,000 from that sale, place the money in an investment and suddenly find that he is earning $1,800 extra per year. Under the policies of the Liberal and National Parties-and unfortunately under three years of the Labor Government-those people paid provisional tax, double tax. We are now changing that and I would like to see it changed further. I urge the Government to loosen up the provisions even further. It will not hurt the revenue for Treasury. At the moment it probably costs more in the administration of the taxation returns of these pensioners than the Government receives from these pensioners through provisional tax. I mentioned that the other matter I wish to raise is the increase in the tax threshold to $5,100. The objective is to increase the threshold so as to benefit low income earners and in so doing to improve their purchasing power by a tax deduction rather than by topping up pensions. This measure must be applauded and hailed, but yet again the National Party will oppose it. I have been concerned for some time at the deterioration in the purchasing power of the low and middle income families throughout Australia, at the way that pensioners and those on fixed incomes week by week have to fight against price rises and increases in rents. Whilst the accord has held down the wage spiral, the price spiral continues. It is even more serious for those who live outside the capital cities, who do not have the benefit of competition and who have to pay higher prices to cover freight. People who live in small towns without, say, a major Woolworths or a Coles store, face extra difficulties. Mr Tim Fischer —Like Yarwun. Mr WRIGHT —I know that the honourable member for Farrer has been to Yarwun recently. He would understand this from his recent visit to central Queensland. Some time back the Queensland Consumers' Association carried out a survey over a three-month period and found that there had been 3,000 price rises in everyday consumer goods. If one talks to consumers in the shopping centres, they say that one week peanut butter costs $1.45 and the following week it costs $1.85. The ordinary pensioner and the ordinary family have to pay those prices. Milk has just increased in Queensland by another 4c a litre. Whether it be petrol, domestic products or other household goods, prices are going up. This Government does not have the power to control those prices and it would be a very difficult task to do anyway. We need to improve the purchasing power of low income Australians. I believe this can best be done not by a price freeze but by increasing purchasing power by reducing the tax paid. The increase in the tax threshold will not take place until September 1986. I ask that it be considered before that time. Hundreds of thousands of families are facing very great difficulties in maintaining their standard of living. Their quality of life is deteriorating. My view is that that threshold ought to be indexed. After all, it is a major benefit to low income earners, especially those on incomes below $12,000 a year. Whilst I admit that all taxpayers would benefit, the benefit to the high income earners would be minimal. They would benefit at only about 25 cents in the dollar from the increase in the threshold. They would not benefit at 60 cents in the dollar if they earned over $36,000 a year. There is growing concern in the community at increased rents, constantly increasing travel costs and the cost of food and clothing. I submit that the Government should look at that tax threshold; it should be regularly reviewed. This should be supported by the Opposition and not opposed by the National Party because country people are in a worse position. I reiterate that it would be better if the threshold were indexed. In my closing moments, I congratulate the Treasurer, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Cabinet for having the courage and the political guts to take the decisions that have been taken in the measures before the House. I believe that their decisions and actions will be vindicated by the Australian people as in the next year they realise the enormous benefits and realise that this Government has been prepared to reform the taxation system-a system that was controlled, locked in and ruined by the previous Liberal and National Party governments for something like 31 years. Dr WATSON(Forde)(5.18) —I support members of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), in opposing Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) and the cognate tax Bills. In the limited time available I wish to speak directly to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1985. Before doing so, one or two general points should be made. Firstly, it should be understood by the Australian population that the cuts in personal income tax announced in the 19 September statement are largely illusory. Basically, the cuts in the marginal rates are being paid for from fiscal drag. In fact, without indexation of the taxation scales, without the marginal tax rate cuts, there would have been a real increase in personal taxation in Australia. Given that the inflation rate is probably running at about 8 per cent a year, over the next couple of years that would have been very significant, forcing many Australians into higher tax brackets. So there are really no significant income tax cuts; they are illusory. They are being paid for by fiscal drag. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) knows this. The small amount that is being returned is being paid for by inequitable and discriminatory taxes on employers. Secondly, these taxation proposals are anti-business. They are also against some of the principles laid down by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in his earlier statements this year. It is hard to see that these taxation cuts will foster growth, employment and investment. It is hard to see that this taxation package has wide community support. One only has to look at this morning's Australian to see that in a poll 77 per cent of Australians suggested that they would support some modification or rejection of the Government's proposals. I realise, of course, that an earlier speaker for the Government suggested that there was a bias in the question that was asked in that poll, but even taking that into account a 77 per cent response is quite significant. It would have to be a tremendous bias to negate that figure. In the remaining time I would like to go through the Treasurer's statement in the second reading speech to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4), in which he outlined some of the rationale for the changes introduced. I will examine that rationale and point out some of the inconsistencies we find in it. The second reading speech notes the Treasurer's 19 September statement: . . . the Government cannot stand by and allow the general body of taxpayers to subsidise through deductions for entertainment expenses the frequently social activities of a group of usually well-off people. I have already indicated that some polls suggest that the majority of Australians find difficulty with that particular point. I also suggest that these are assertions without any significant empirical support. When one reads the Treasurer's statements, one is struck by the fact that assertions are later presented as facts. It reminds one of Lewis Carroll's characters in his book Through the Looking Glass, when the Treasurer starts to define words in a way that suits him rather than in the way that they are normally used in the English language. If flows through this document that the Treasurer moves from a fairly simple statement suggesting that there might be some cases where people might abuse the system to a strong statement saying that people engaged in using entertainment expenses frequently abuse the system and that it must be stamped out. The Treasurer's statement continues: The Government recognises that this measure will mean that in some cases deductions will be denied for genuine business expenses. Mr White —Shameful! Dr WATSON —It is shameful in that it indicates a move from a fundamental principle of taxation law that money spent in the earning of assessable income should be deducted as an expense. Once this principle is attacked and that attack is set into legislation, it is only a question of where it should stop. It is then an arbitrary decision. It is not one that is fundamental to the way taxation law is developed. What is or is not a legitimate business expense is determined at the whim of the Government. It is fundamental that the spending of money, outlays undertaken to earn assessable income, should be deductible in determining taxable income. The Treasurer's statement also claims: That abuse has been possible because of the inherent difficulties in distinguishing between genuine and non-genuine entertainment-difficulties that have proved intractable despite suggestions that have been offered to us. This provides no excuse for an arbitrary disallowance. It provides no excuse for overthrowing a fundamental taxation law principle. It may be too hard for the Australian Taxation Office right now to separate legitimate from illegitimate business expenses. I suggest that the first place to look at is the quality of the staff at the Taxation Office and how they go about doing their business. We have certainly seen the Taxation Office significantly increase its staff levels over the last couple of years. Perhaps we should look at how the Taxation Office uses the resources available to it. I suggest that perhaps it does not operate in an optimum fashion. Before we start overthrowing generations of taxation law principles, we should look at how the system is operating. The Treasurer's statement says further: The vast majority of taxpayers do not benefit from the current law which is available only to a limited class of persons. The fact that lunches are deductible for the business person eating with clients or colleagues in an expensive restaurant, but not for the ordinary worker, has added to the public's perception of the unfairness of the current taxation system. That is another assertion which is not backed up by any empirical fact. I suggest to the contrary, that Australians are more sophisticated than that. They understand that interpersonal relationships are important in conducting business. One has to build up an understanding and a trust amongst individuals with whom business is being conducted. That is facilitated from time-to-time through both formal business and informal contact. Just yesterday the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) was asked a Dorothy Dix question about the summit-between the President of the United States of America and the General-Secretary of the Communist Party of Russia. He was asked how much this Government supported the summit. The summit is no more than a meeting. Certainly it has some formal parts, but there are a number of dinners and lunches. The whole objective is to help to ease tensions and improve the understanding of the participants. Yet this Government is not willing to recognise that that same principle could work and, in fact, will work in conducting international business transactions. This Government is hypocritical. This Government is using a blunt instrument in order to overcome some abuse in this area. This Government will deny deductions for highly legitimate business exercises such as product launches and it will also stop certain legitimate advertising or marketing projects which will remove certain promotional avenues from ordinary businesses. The Treasurer's statement claims: There has been much public comment on the impact of the measures on the restaurant industry. The Treasurer and his colleagues think it is smart to conduct an emotional crusade against the business lunch. I remind the Treasurer that there are many thousands of small business men and women who run restaurants in this country and many will literally go out of business. Contrary to the Treasurer's description, they are not wimps, bludgers, whingers or rorters, they are ordinary men and women who have borrowed heavily, who have taken a risk, who work long hours and who do not deserve the meat cleaver approach taken to their livelihood by this Government. I could go on for quite some time analysing the Treasurer's speech. Mr Cadman —Why don't you? I think you should. Dr WATSON —My colleague suggests that I should. Unfortunately, we have already agreed to certain rules for this debate which allow us a limited amount of time. While I would like to take up my colleague's suggestion, I am afraid that other colleagues might think otherwise. In conclusion, I would like to coin a new word for the Keating-Hawke economics, namely `wreck- enomics'. In the space of 24 months the Treasurer has wrecked the incentive to work hard, has wrecked the incentive for risk taking and has wrecked the Australian dollar. At the moment he is in the process of wrecking Australia for future generations. Mr LAMB(Streeton)(5.30) —Speaker after speaker on the Opposition side has tried to beat up a sense of anger with the claim that these tax reforms have been rushed through and that what is needed is a slow, deliberate and careful examination of the tax reform proposals. Where have they been over the last 12 months? Where have they been over the last decade? Since the report of the Asprey Taxation Review Committee way back in 1975 taxation reform has been an everyday topic of conversation. They do not want detailed consideration, they do not want debate and they do not want reform. Their only cry has been to take the goodies, the tax reductions, and to reject the nasties, the new revenue to pay for the reductions in income tax. That is the most irresponsible attitude to fiscal responsibility I have heard in this place. It is political opportunism at its basest and its most blatant. It will be recognised as such by the electorate and the Opposition will stay in opposition where it can continue to indulge in its irresponsible rhetoric. A lot has been said about tax reform over recent years and much of it has been rehearsed today in this debate on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) and cognate Bills. The Whitlam Labor Government began the road to reform by setting up the Asprey inquiry into taxation in this country. It is well known that the vested interests with the most to lose from tax reform were a part of the forces that saw to the overthrow of that democratically elected Government almost exactly 10 years ago. It was important to them that tax reform did not proceed, and it is still important to those vested interests that tax reform does not proceed now. During the 7 1/2 years of office of the Fraser Government the rhetoric on tax reform reached fever pitch but action was next to zilch. Towards the end of that disastrous economic period some action was taken, I acknowledge, by the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) against tax evasion, but any overall approach, any widespread attack against tax evasion and avoidance or against the obvious inequities throughout the tax system was placed in the too hard basket. During those 7 1/2 years tax avoidance became an art form, something to be boasted about around boardroom tables and around the tables in top restaurants. Honest taxpayers and those wage and salary earners not in a position to exploit loopholes in the tax law or to employ a tax evasion consultant were dismissed as fools. Moreover, those who peddled this socially acceptable ethic of avoidance and evasion did so on the spurious and synthetic argument that no one should pay more tax than was reasonable, that government was too big anyway and that it was honourable to fight this good fight by not paying tax at all if possible. That seems to be the argument of the Opposition. Of course, a reasonable tax became no tax and any government at all was too big if someone was rich enough to ignore or not need it. Meanwhile, the role of tax and government spending in our society dropped out of the debate. It was the lower paid and middle income earners who were forced to carry the tax load so that essential government spending on health, education, roads, pensions and defence could continue. This trend, this disease, has to stop and this Government has acted to stop the rot. Before the election it declared that tax reform would be the order of the day and that, quite properly, the community would be consulted about the best way to reform. That is why the Tax Summit was set up and the options were fully canvassed. The White Paper with the preferred option of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) provided the focus for the debate, but the outcome of the Summit, which we see in the reforms before us now, is the preferred reforms of the community at large. It should therefore be no surprise to honourable members that the community has accepted the tax package, indeed praised it widely, and that the complaints have come from isolated pockets of tax evaders and avoiders. The Opposition is totally out of touch. When people hear, as I did in this chamber, what the honourable member for Forde (Dr Watson) had to say, I predict that they will ensure that he will not come back after the next election. The community has accepted this package because it has gone a long way towards restoring the basic principles of equity and justice to the taxation system, that each should contribute tax to the community through the Government according to his or her capacity to pay-that is, according to his or her income however it is derived, directly or indirectly. During this tax debate the many speakers opposite have repeatedly revealed their lack of understanding about the role of tax and the pupose of tax reform. They too have flaunted their concern and regard for the interests of the tax avoiders. They have attempted to muddy the waters in this tax debate and to whip up the enmity of farmers, restaurateurs and business people through misrepresentation and distortion of the tax measures announced by the Treasurer. The Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Chipp) had this to say about the Opposition's arguments and tactics on tax reform: The Opposition's behaviour was pathetic, mind-boggling pathetic. He went on to say: One of the Liberal's problems is that they judge everyone else by their own abysmal moral standards. Is it any wonder that that gentleman quit the Liberal Party and its dishonesty to start another party? If the Opposition is going to prevent these important Bills being passed in the Senate it had better lift the standard of its debate out of the feeding trough and up to the level of economic morality. I turn to the charges by the Opposition that the denial of tax deductions for all entertainment expenses will cause wide-spread bankruptcies and a lay-off of staff in the restaurant industry. Again and again the Opposition relies heavily on inaccuracies and hyperbole. It is staggering to hear the Opposition bleat about an alleged Government attack on the catering and restaurant industry when what has happened has been simply the lifting of a tax shelter behind which a multitude of restaurants have been established, relying on customers who are heavily subsidised by taxpayers. This bleating comes from a dry economics Opposition which believes in minimum government interference in the market and that the demand and supply forces in the restaurant market should be left to themselves. Yet when this Government removes the indirect assistance to part of that industry, those depending on the free business lunch and dinner, by cutting out entertainment expenses the dries become so wet that they drown in their own hypocrisy. It is true, and the Government acknowledges it, that a business lunch can be damn hard work and that a case can be made that entertainment is a genuine cost of creating income. The honourable member for Forde made that comment and I agree with it; but let us go on. It is therefore a legitimate claim against tax. But when claims include expenses on lavish meals, expensive wines, cocktail parties, tickets or boxes at sporting events, theatre evenings and so-called hostess allowances, the taxpayers can be excused for thinking that matters have become a rort and that the prime reason for these expenses has become predominantly social or a personal benefit rather than a business activity. In short, the breaking of bread to close a business contract has been replaced by the crunching of crayfish and caviare. The Government has declared that from now on the average taxpayer, the honest taxpayer, should no longer subsidise through the tax system the social activities of what are generally higher income earners. Under the former taxation arrangements it was impossible to distinguish between the rort and the genuine business enterprise. Those dishonest and greedy claimants have ruined it all for the genuine business claims. They have killed the goose that laid the golden egg. If the business sector wants to continue to claim for genuine working meals, let business come up with an acceptable formula that will convince the honest taxpayers that rorts are a thing of the past and that will convince the Government that the reforms can be reviewed within the guidelines of probity, equity, and justice. I believe the Government has gone some way towards doing this in this Bill by allowing tax deductions where the nexus between genuine work and dining is proven and directly associated with the industrial award or the work place. In expressing concern for the catering and restaurant industry is the Opposition really creating a smokescreen to protect its comrades who wish to retain their rorts? Are its claims that the restaurant industry has been decimated really true? A recent survey commissioned by the national restaurant industry has attempted to show that this is so. However, I believe that the more realistic among the industry are on record as saying that a rationalisation, a sorting out, was inevitable and that market forces will mean that those places offering quality food at sensible prices will survive. Certainly that is the story in my electorate where a fair number of fine retaurants operate to serve the tourists, the day trippers and the family clientele. They are important, too, because they employ a lot of local people, full time and part time. A few weeks ago my staff carried out a phone survey to ascertain the impact on local out-of-town restaurants. The results confirm that those restaurants which do not rely on the business meal or the employer-paid credit card have not been affected. Some 55 per cent claimed no impact at all; 20 per cent replied that they had suffered a slight impact. Neither of the two groups had laid off any staff. Some 25 per cent complained that they had suffered a major impact, all associated with business and company lunches, and some staff lay-offs had occurred. Generally all the restaurants had maintained a wait-and-see policy. That was the most common response. A more recent and extended phone survey confirmed the above results. I have pointed out how the Opposition and those who have avoided tax have tried to distort the debate and misrepresent the effects of these reforms. Ordinary Australians have not been fooled by this opportunist campaign and have thoroughly endorsed the Government's proposals. Equity, justice and probity are being restored to our tax system. I commend the measures to the House. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(5.42) —All I can say about the speech of the honourable member for Streeton (Mr Lamb) is that it must be a long time since he has spoken to a restaurant owner in his electorate or anywhere else, for that matter, if he makes the extraordinary and outlandish claim that they are not suffering a loss of business and that unemployment is not occurring in the restaurant industry. We are debating here tonight a whole series of tax Bills-- Mr Holding —You believe that the taxpayer ought to subsidise the restaurant industry, do you? Mr WHITE —I will pick that up in a moment. The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) and cognate Bills are a package of bills which the Government and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) have brought before this House. It is interesting to look back some months to the beginning of this year when the Government embarked on the adventurous, brave and entirely commendable exercise of reforming the taxation system of the country. What have we got before us tonight? We have a tax Bill that requires two hands to hold up, together with an explanatory memorandum that is just as bad-full of complications and anomalies. The Government has the hide to bring this legislation into this House and say that it is part of the tax reform measures. While we are talking about the Treasurer, in passing I add that I believe his performance in this House in the last few days has been a disgrace to this Parliament. The language he uses-- Mr Holding —Rubbish. Mr WHITE —Does the Minister support the language used by the Treasurer in this House? Mr Holding —I think it is very appropriate and very descriptive. Mr WHITE —The Minister should be recorded as supporting such language. Mr Hand —I have heard you use worse in the dining room. Mr WHITE —The honourable member for Melbourne also supports language of that sort that denigrates every member of this House. I just make sure that it is recorded. What we are seeing tonight is simply a package not of reform but of more taxes-capital gains tax, fringe benefits tax, which is yet to come, and tonight in this package disallowance of tax on entertainment expenses. Some reform! The Government set out to reform the tax system and it heaps another series of taxes on the Australian people. It set out to address probably the most important element that needs addressing in the Australian economy-the reduction of personal income tax, probably the most important problem we face, as both sides of the House recognise, except perhaps the abuse of union power-and the Government comes up with a package that gives us more taxes. The Government did set out to address that problem and that should be recognised. It probably had some chance of success until a few months ago when during the abortive National Taxation Summit the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) scuttled across town in the middle of the night for a quick conference with the Australian Council of Trade Unions, on its grounds and on its terms. He then scuttled back to tell his Treasurer: `It is all off-sorry about that'. In the end the Government finished up with a lemon and deserved to do so. The Treasurer, brave in the face of adversity, was not going to retreat or withdraw. A whiff of grapeshot was not going to worry him. So we finish up with this legislation-a tax package that gives us more taxes. It introduces a capital gains tax, probably one of the most stupid taxes ever introduced into this country. This is a young country begging for capital, for entrepreneurs, for people to establish businesses, take risks and employ people. What does the Government do? It whacks on a capital gains tax that destroys incentive. Mr Holding —What absolute rubbish. Mr WHITE —The Minister sits there laughing. Let me tell him what is happening in my electorate on the Gold Coast. Mr Lamb —The Gold Coast-the wealthiest part of Australia. Mr WHITE —It is a wealthy and productive part of Australia and I am very pleased to represent it. At the moment in my area there is the greatest shortage of rental accommodation for over 30 years. That is simply a product of Labor's economic policies, because all the investors are pulling out of the rental market. They are not interested in going into rental accommodation because they will be hit with a capital gains tax at the end. On the other hand, interest rates are making it impossible for people to purchase their own homes. So one has a double squeeze and a shortage of rental accommodation. The same thing is happening all over Australia. The Government's proposal on fringe benefits, the other element of this tax package which is yet to come in, goes against all tax principles. It will do nothing but erode company profits. It will bring in less tax to government because companies will be paying less tax. We see already the effects the proposal is having in the car industry, where companies are deferring the purchase of cars because they will have to pay for any benefits that flow on to an employee. We are seeing the effects in the rural industry, and we will see a lot more of it in that industry. How are people to be attracted to the remote parts of Australia unless they have some benefits-a house to live in, petrol, power and food? The fools who thought of this scheme obviously have never been to the country areas. That is where it will hit hardest, at the very time when the economic prospects for the rural people are down. Let me take another example, Qantas Airways Ltd. The airline estimates that it will cost $33m to provide the benefits for its employees-more than half its profits. In the few minutes that remain to me in this debate, I turn to the entertainment tax-probably the most stupid tax of all. Why in the first place should not genuine business expenses be allowed? One hears from the Government time after time that we cannot separate the genuine cases from abuses. What a lot of rubbish. There are some many exemptions in this Bill that the Tax Commissioner will be working overtime to sort them out. This sort of imposition is being put upon the Tax Commissioner. Why not allow him, under reasonable guidelines, to sort out the genuine from those who abuse the system? In the tourist industry, for example, how does one promote a product if one cannot invite people to come to a gathering and give them a drink and a sandwich to promote a new package holiday? Our entrepreneurs go to Japan, where they are looked after very well indeed. Our biggest tourist market is Japan. When the Japanese come here to see where they would like to send their customers, are we to say to those who entertain them: `Sorry, no tax deductions for entertainment.' Mr Holding —The question is, should the taxpayer subsidise it? Mr WHITE —It is a genuine business deduction. Mr Holding —Do you mean to say that they are not going to give a Japanese tourist a drink of Scotch? Don't be so stupid. Mr WHITE —Of course they will but they will have to pay for it and this will erode company profits. Mr Holding —You pay for it. I pay for it. Mr WHITE —Is the Minister saying that that sort of promotion, which is in direct support of our tourist industry, should not be allowed? That is what the Minister is saying. We have heard nonsense here this afternoon about the benefits that should be applicable to some people and not to others. In genuine terms what is the difference between a businessman and a miner earning an income? The miner has his tools of trade; a businessman has genuine tax deductions-the same as anyone else. The miners, above all other people, understand the situation because those businessmen are out there negotiating their coal contracts. They understand only too well. They have no resentment in regard to genuine business expenses. Mr Holding —Of course there isn't. But the miner, if he takes someone to lunch, doesn't get the tax deduction, does he? Mr Braithwaite —Let him have his go, Clyde. Mr WHITE —I do not worry about him; no-one else does. I ask the honourable member not to worry about the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Was the honourable member in Darwin the other day to see the Minister performing to five or six hundred people? Those people got under his skin and he resorted to personal abuse. Within five seconds he had lost the lot. It was a disgraceful performance. When the Minister personally abused them he had no chance at all. The Minister of the Crown abusing the whole conference- Mr Hand —Good on you, Clyde. Mr WHITE —The honourable member for Melbourne has said: `Good on you'. The people who are working in and populating the north come together once a year. The honourable member for Melbourne says good on the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs for abusing the people of the north. If there is any doubt opposite-there seems to be some doubt on the other side-I will tell honourable members what the people of Australia think about the tax package. It is plastered all over the front of the Australian newspaper today. The Australian states that 77 per cent of the community oppose the tax move and want to see it changed. That figure of 77 per cent was derived in a survey authorised and conducted by an organisation called BAND, Businesses against Non-Deductibility, which represents some very considerable business interests in this country. I believe that organisation has done a very good job in putting together a professional survey and a case against this tax package. I believe that probably 18,000 people will be lost from the restaurant industry. One of the worst things about the Government's attitude has been the abuse it has heaped on the restaurant industry because it has dared to be in the business. The rorters and the cheats that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) keeps talking about are not in the restaurant industry. Why does he not move against those people who are abusing the system rather than those in the restaurant industry who are trying to make a quid? The Treasurer says that he will save $310m. I doubt very much that by the time he has paid the unemployment benefits and the loss of revenue that will result from this imposition he will save a cracker. As far as the entertainment tax is concerned the answer lies not in assaulting the whole industry. It does not lie in assaulting those people who go to restaurants; those people who make business tick; those people who take risks and those who employ other people. The answer lies in moving against those people who abuse the system. We want to see genuine business deductions allowed. We will be moving an amendment during the course of this debate to that effect. The events of the last few months indicate how much we in Australia need the risk takers and the entrepreneurs and how little we need more taxes. Let honourable members make no mistake, that is what we are getting. It is in the interests of all Australians that this Bill be well and truly defeated. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(5.55) —I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the debate today on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) and cognate Bills as I missed the opportunity previously to talk in the broader tax debate which took place some weeks ago. I wanted to say then-I will take the opportunity to do so now-that I congratulate the Labor Government, firstly, for producing its tax package and, secondly, for the way in which it went about achieving that result; that is, involving the community in a broad-ranging debate, seeking community views and coming back, I believe, with a package that will assist those in the community who require assistance. I congratulate the Government for a package which will, in fact, make the tax system all the fairer. The package announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on 19 September will restore and extend the personal income tax base. As a consequence, it will lead to a greater degree of fairness and equity in our tax system. One of the principal elements of the reform package, from the point of view of equity, is the attack on poverty traps. That reform is to be achieved by the Social Security (Poverty Traps) Reduction Bill which is part of the cognate debate today. Poverty traps hit pensioners and beneficiaries with some private means or earnings who, as a result of high effective marginal tax rates on that income, are left little better off despite earning this extra money. They literally become trapped in a cycle of poverty. In recognition of the difficulties being faced by pensioners and beneficiaries in this predicament, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) included a commitment to reduce poverty traps as one of the nine main principles of tax reform. That commitment has been adhered to by the Government. The Treasurer in his statement on `Reform of the Australian Tax System' said: As part of the reform package, the Government has recognized that certain Social Security arrangements presently provide little incentive for pensioners and beneficiaries to earn extra income. Accordingly, the Government will take a number of steps to alleviate the problems caused by these poverty traps. One of the Bills before us today, the Social Security (Poverty Traps) Reduction Bill 1985, gives effect to the Treasurer's statement. Of the pensioners and taxpayers who are affected by poverty traps the group that has been probably hit hardest is that of sole parents and their children. Currently there are some 154,000 people in Australia in receipt of the supporting parent's benefit who are raising some 200,000 children on income levels well below the poverty line. According to researchers from the Department of Social Security, this group is far worse off economically than it was 20 years ago. Other research shows that some 15 per cent of all Australian children now live in poverty compared with 8 per cent in 1972 when the Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty carried out its inquiry. The conclusion we must draw is that we have not only a situation of increasing numbers of single parent families living in poverty but also a situation whereby the children of these families are more likely to remain trapped by poverty in their adult lives. The cycle will only be short circuited by government taking steps to raise the incomes of sole parent families. The Labor Government has recognised the critical need of this group and we have considerably improved the lack of income provided to such families, either directly or indirectly. The measures contained in this Bill will further assist, particularly in respect of sole parents who seek to boost their personal income from limited amounts of part time or casual work. In essence, the Bill significantly eases the incomes test on pensioners, including sole parents. The incomes test free area will be extended by $10 to $40 a week for single pensioners, while the income disregard for children will be doubled from $6 to $12. This means that from November 1986 a sole parent with one child will be able to earn $52 of outside income per week before her or his pension is affected. The effect of this action will be to return the value of the income-free area to 1976-77 levels after the years of decline when the Opposition was in power. Of the various options open to the Government to alleviate high effective marginal tax rates the decision to increase the income free area is probably the most appropriate for encouraging pensioners to take on a limited amount of work in conditions under which full time work is difficult to manage, as is the case for single parents. The other main proposal contained in the Bill is the abolition of a separate and structured income test applying to rent assistance for pensioners and beneficiaries. People who now receive only a part rate of rent assistance because of their private income will become eligible for the maximum rate of $15 while others who have not been eligible for any assistance in the past will also become eligible for the full or part rate of the rent assistance. This change will particularly benefit the large numbers of sole parent families in the private rental market who have been hit by escalating costs of private rental accommodation. A recent survey by Professor Ronald Henderson and David Gough published in Australian Society found that Australia-wide 38.9 per cent of single parent pensioners with one child renting privately could be described as very poor. The description `very poor' applied to more than 68 per cent of single parents with two children, and 73 per cent of single parents with three children, living in private rental accommodation. Those are very sad figures for a country such as Australia, with the wealth that it has. The survey also showed that there are considerable differences in levels of poverty between private renters and mortgagees. The removal of this separate income tax for rental assistance will help as many as 300,000 pensioners and beneficiaries who are renting privately. So 300,000 people and their families will be assisted. The combined impact of the two measures to reduce poverty traps will mean that a sole parent with one child, earning the modest amount of $80 a week and renting privately, will be $23 a week better off. The single parent with two children earning $100 a week and renting privately will be $26 a week better off. By these measures, the Labor Government has demonstrated its commitment to assisting those people in our community who are most in need. We obviously have a long way to go. I believe that the measures that we have undertaken to introduce by way of this legislation mark another step towards achieving our goal of fairness and equity. In referring to comments made earlier in the debate I should refer to the front page of the Melbourne Herald today, 21 November, and remarks attributed to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). The headline reads `We'll cut dole: Howard'. The article reads: Canberra-A coalition government would cut the dole and benefits to supporting parents, said the Opposition Leader, Mr Howard. I add that for what it is worth in terms of the debate. I also point out that comments have been attributed to Senator Chaney to the effect that he intends to examine these areas of expenditure. That can only mean hardship for those who are in receipt of pensions or benefits of one type or another. Also, I refer to the comments made earlier in the debate by the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt). He used examples which were selective, hypothetical and very inaccurate. Mr Braithwaite —Have you seen them and examined them? Mr HAND —The honourable member may laugh, but I understand that the laugh is on the honourable member and not on me, because what the honourable member for Richmond said was quite inaccurate. Almost no one in receipt of the supporting parent's benefit has non-pension income of $207 or more. In fact, over 70 per cent of sale parents have no income over and above the pension. The honourable member for Richmond referred to a figure of 74 per cent, in my memory serves me right. But I understand the figures he cited were wrong. He will be advised later today by the Parliamentary Library, which worked them out for him, that his figures were wrong. So all of the figures attributed to the shadow Minister, when he spoke earlier today, were incorrect. He has been advised of that by the Parliamentary Library. I think it is a bit sad when the shadow Minister starts spouting incorrect figures. I think it is a shame, because he is not a bad bloke, but he was very wrong in this case. He probably needs glasses. Mr Braithwaite —Haven't you got your numbers wrong? Mr HAND —I never get my numbers wrong. I assure the honourable member that I have never been out by 74 per cent. I probably would not be here if that were the case. I make the point that the shadow Minister got everything very wrong. Perhaps he ought to do a bit more homework before he starts attacking the legislation. I have a couple of minutes left, under the arrangements that have been made. I take the opportunity to comment briefly on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1985. In particular, I refer to clause 9 of the Bill, which inserts a new section 51AE into the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, abolishing tax deductibility for entertainment expenses. A quite outrageous campaign has been conducted throughout our community on this question. In my electorate there are probably more restaurants per acre than in any other electorate in Australia. They are all of a very high quality. Most people who visit Melbourne probably have the opportunity and the good fortune to have a meal in my electorate. I am quite amazed at some of the comments that have been attributed to people in the industry. Yet, as the member representing all of those restaurants in the electorate, I have had very few queries. Some people have been critical of the proposals, but in the main people seem to think that the tax proposals are fair. I thought it would be a good idea to talk to the union, given that there has been a lot of talk about the loss of jobs in the industry. I thought I would approach the union because the Victorian branch of the Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees Union-a good branch of an excellent union-services industry members. If one listened to comments made by honourable members opposite, one would have thought that the union would say that many people had been complaining about this measure. I would have thought that obviously there had been hundreds of complaints, but the union had not received hundreds of calls or complaints. I said: `You have had dozens, obviously'. But not one complaint has been lodged by anyone in the Liquor Trades Union who has suffered a loss of job in the restaurant industry. Not one person in the Victorian branch of that union has suffered from loss of employment. Quite clearly there has been a campaign based mainly on hysteria and half truths, and unfortunately that has had some effect in the general community. I guess some people have believed that thousands of people are losing their jobs. In fact, that is not the case. There are not thousands of restaurants closing down. A survey undertaken by the Melbourne City Council showed that one in seven new restaurants survived the first 18 months of operation, while a total of 50 per cent of those retaurants changed hands in the 18 months prior to the survey being carried out. A fact in the industry is that restaurants do change hands fairly regularly. I suggest that some people in the industry are using the tax changes as a scapegoat to try to cover up some of the problems that the industry has anyway because of the way in which it is structured. Also some employers are using employees by making underaward payments. The employees work very hard hours. I think the industry is a very hard industry to work in. Anyone who has worked in the entertainment industry would know that working in restaurants or any other form of the entertainment industry can be very taxing on one's health and it is very hard work. These people work extraordinary hours. I think that the employers, instead of opposing the granting of the 3.8 per cent national wage case increase to their employees, would be better off paying it and gaining a closer relationship with their employees. They may find that people will be more enthusiastic in their work, if they do not try to pin them down to work for under- award rates and oppose their national wage case increase. I think that the tax package, taken as a whole, is an excellent package. Everybody would like to have seen some minor alterations here and there. But it must be seen as a package. As I said, it is excellent; it is fair. It goes to the point of distributing the wealth of this country to the people who constitute the overwhelming majority of people in my electorate-that is, the poor, the needy and those pay as you earn taxpayers who have been paying their tax year in, year out and who have received no benefits such as free lunches or Gold Coast holidays. They have payed their fair share of the tax burden, only to see people rip off the system. I will close by telling a little story that a restaurant operator told me last Friday. He said that he thought that this tightening up on the lurks and perks was not a bad idea, because a few months before it came in he had in his restaurant a couple of people who were entertaining a large group. When he took the bill to them, the person said: `Put another $25 on the bill, will you? Call it wine, entrees or something. I have to cover the costs of the babysitter, and the boss will pay it next week when I lob the bill on his desk'. The person in the restaurant was being asked, quite clearly, to enter into fraud against the person's employer. This measure will put an end to this sort of occurrence. It will make people pay fairly if they want to go out and have a good time, and it will make industry pay its fair share of the tax take, as do the workers and as do most honest people in our society. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(6.09) —I would like to refer to the occurrence which the previous speaker, the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand), described. It showed that people not only evade taxation but also defraud their employers. But, if it was a recent event, the restaurateur should have told the person concerned that there was no longer a tax deduction and that what he was attempting was a fraudulent practice. Mr Hand —I said it was prior to the introduction of tax changes. Read what I said. I said it was a few months back. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I am sorry; I thought the honourable member indicated that it was a recent occurrence. The honurable member did not really make the point that, in trying to correct that type of evasion, the Government has perpetrated the bigger fraud of taxing the employer on the fringe benefit, if there is to be a fringe benefit. This tax legislation is probably the greatest fraud that this Labor Government has perpetrated on society. It is being rushed through this House. Some of the taxation Bills were introduced only last Friday. We have had only the weekend in which to look at them. As I understand it, the public had access to these Bills and the explanatory memoranda as late as last Tuesday, and we are debating them today which is Thursday. One has to say that the Bills are being rushed through. They are being rushed through also in the sense that any opportunity of a sensible debate in this House has been lost because six Bills are being debated together, many of them do not interact and we were asked to cut down our speaking time. What has been described as tax reform-the Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) said in his second reading speech that it was critical reform-is nothing of the sort, because it has no semblance of reform. My idea of reform is that a tax Bill as large as the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) should be simplified. Tax reform means reducing the size of that Bill not only in content but also so that is can be understood and reacted to by the public. Just to give one example, clause 9 of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) entitled `Deductions not allowable for entertainment expenses' takes up some eight pages. That clause proposes to deny to a taxpayer a legitimate expense which is normally allowed as far as accounting is concerned. If that clause is an example of tax reform, and it is only one part of the total package, I would like to see what the Australian Labor Party will say when it addresses itself to the real problems of the Bill-its size, its complexity and may other aspects. The package was described very early on as the tax cart. We know what happened to the Treasurer (Mr Keating). Judging from the way that tax cart fell apart during the early part of the year, Treasurer Keating has to be described as a latter day Ben Hur. As I recall Ben Hur's experience, he struggled over the finishing line with the wheels missing from his chariot. So perhaps that is a proper comparison. When we consider the matter of equity-we are talking about equitable tax reform-we can all recall the February statement made by the Treasurer when he said, quite rightly, that employees would be made to pay tax on non-cash fringe benefits. He said that quite categorically one day. The next day Mr Dolan from the Australian Council of Trade Unions got hold of that statement and realised that he would be taxed on some of the non-cash fringe benefits that he was getting. He said that that would not happen, and the next day the Treasurer turned around completely and said that the employer, not the beneficiary-the recipient-would be assessed. Where is the equity in that proposal? Where is the consistency? The whole package is inconsistent because the Treasurer pointed out quite categorically that the marginal rates of tax would be reduced so that there would be no excuse for a person able to get those fringe benefits not to pay the tax on them. I am talking about the taxpayer in the high range. So the inconsistency is that while tax will be reduced at some time in the future, it will be to the benefit of only the employee. The employer will have to pick up the extra 49c in the dollar, or whatever it is, in his costs and that will not be a tax deduction. That is a basic inconsistency, and it is certainly not equitable. It is wrong in principle. We talk a lot about principles. Let us get it straight that the principle of taxing a non-cash fringe benefit-I believe that the honourable member for Banks (Mr Mountford), who is an accountant, will understand this-has always been that if one received income one should be taxed on it. The Government's proposal is wrong in principle. It overturns every taxation canon that has been in existence over the centuries under British law. It makes the tax legislation a pretty lousy package, because it will add to the costs of employers and businesses at a time that they can ill afford it. I can say only that the result might be-the Government might have intended this-that in the period before the end of June next year many employers will cash up their non-cash fringe benefits and make the employee bear the costs. We have already been cautioned by the unions that if this were to happen we should watch out. This package is a tax on business at a time when the economy is reeling under the Government's subservience to the ACTU and when our dollar has devalued against every major and minor currency in the world. I have a list from one of the banks of calculations on how our dollar has measured up against international currencies over the last twelve months. Forty-three countries, both major and minor, are compared. Our currency has appreciated against only one of those currencies-that of South Africa. In every other case it has depreciated by what I would suggest is an average of 28 per cent. Why are we not addressing overselves to that problem? This package is being brought in at a time when our agriculture, mining and manufacturing industries are reeling under the onslaught of interest rates and other Government-induced costs and charges and when Australia has recorded its worst monthly balance, on current account, with a deficit of $1.641 billion. This Government taxes incentives, it taxes ambition and it taxes capital formation. This is inconsistent, illogical and inappropriate considering the policies on tax reform that are required to bring Australia out of its present economic crisis. It is also further proof of the Hawke Labor Government's economic vandalism and incompetence. The cost of this package to the productive sector of the economy has to be recorded. Figures taken from the White Paper on taxation indicate that the total cost of the tax package to the rural, business and export sector in 1986-87 will be $793m. In 1987-88 it will be $1,243m. That is a further charge against the productive sector of the economy. This socialist Government, as do all socialist governments, has a habit of taxing the productive and reducing everything to the lowest common denominator, whereas it has been proved that lower rates of taxation can raise people's standards to a higher common denominator. I put on record the results of a World Bank survey carried out in 1982. Twenty nations throughout the world were compared-a low taxing nation with a high-taxing nation. The comparisons were made using seven criteria; namely, the increase in gross domestic product, public and private consumption, gross domestic investment, exports, labour force, and labour productivity. In all but three of those comparisons-there were 70 of them-the low-taxing nation exceeded the high-taxing nation. The low-taxing nations were still able to cope with the growth that was generated and also to help in the other very vital areas of defence, health and education, and social welfare. This high-taxing Government should take a lesson from those World Bank figures to see what the impact of its legislation will be. As I have said, this package is inconsistent in that parts of it are dealt with in isolation from the others. For instance, clause 9 of the Bill, which deals with entertainment expenses, covers car expenses incurred by employees. That question should be addressed within the context of fringe benefits as well in the context of entertainment expenses and private expenditure. Honourable members and the public have not been given the benefit of interlocking the various contexts. So we are dealing with this legislation in haste and in piecemeal fashion. I refer also to the aspect of quarantining of farm losses. While not addressed in this legislation, it is inconsistent with present legislation which allows losses from subsidiary companies to be transferred and deducted against profits from the aggregated profits of the holding company. The Treasurer has faced the public and the unions on the matter of tax reform, but he has backed down to the unions and to the Socialist Left. The honourable member for Melbourne, who has just left the chamber, said that he checked his figures. He would know what I mean in referring to the massive backdown by the Treasurer in the face of the arguments from the Socialist Left. In fact, his retreat on this whole package makes Custer's last stand look like a tremendous victory. He stands condemned in that retreat from the equity, fairness and reform that he and his Prime Minister so proudly espoused at the beginning of this year. I know that we have been asked to be brief, so I will reserve some of my comments for the committee stage of these Bills. Mr MOUNTFORD(Banks)(6.21) —The tax reform package presented to this House by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in September was the final stage of tax reform by the Hawke Labor Government. Since its election in 1983, the Government has consistently pursued policies directed towards restoring strong economic growth and, at the same time, creating tax equity and a fairer society. The Government has been singularly successful in this task. Since coming to office this Government has cut inflation by half and created more than 470,000 new jobs. We are on the road to continued strong economic growth because of the strenuous efforts by the Government and the trade union movement to pull this country out of the economic and employment mire into which it had sunk under the former conservative coalition Government. The economic conditions we are enjoying today have been hard won but have been well worth the sacrifices because Australia is now one of the brightest stars on the world economic horizon. At the same time as fine tuning the economy, the Government has been slowly making the taxation system a fairer one. We started in 1983 by closing many loopholes of tax avoidance and evasion. We also put the tax cheats and their advisers on notice that we would not tolerate tax schemes which would effectively reduce the proper rate of taxation to be paid by those who sought to involve themselves in tax avoidance measures. A clear warning was given that such schemes would be legislated against retrospectively so that the tax so avoided would be payable from the time of introduction of the tax avoidance scheme. Governments have been aware for some time that wage and salary earners in Australia have been paying too much tax from their earnings because of the non-progressive nature of the tax scales which have not been fully indexed for inflation over the last decade. The previous conservative government relied upon taxation increasing as a result of high inflation to such an extent that the burden of such increases was not shared equally across the community. In the 1984-85 Budget the first reform of the tax scales was introduced by inserting an additional two scales of 25 cents and 48 cents in the dollar. These changes had the effect of making the tax scales more progressive in nature by giving taxpayers on lower incomes reductions averaging $7.60 a week with lesser reductions going to those on higher incomes. The second reform of the tax system is the subject of this debate. It is part of the most comprehensive reform of the tax system that has been attempted since Federation. Its sole aim is to ensure that the payment of tax is equitable across the range of incomes, whether such incomes are earned by way of salaries or wages, investments or sale of shares or property. It ensures that the day of the lurks and perks enjoyed by those on higher incomes have gone. With the introduction of further alterations of the tax scales over the next 18 months, every income earner will get a fairer deal. Eventually no one will pay more than 49 cents in the dollar and there will be a greater incentive to earn more income and a lesser incentive to avoid tax. These changes to the tax scales, coupled with the introduction of a fringe benefits tax, a capital gains tax, the abolition of allowances for entertainment and the necessity for income earners to account for expenses and allowances will lay the foundations for an equitable tax system. These reforms to the tax system are not for the purpose of raising additional revenue, as the total yield from the package together with additonal funds will be returned to taxpayers. For example, next financial year tax cuts worth $2 billion will be given to taxpayers, whereas only $800m will be received from additional taxes. In the following financial year the cost of the tax cuts will be about $4.5 billion, of which $1.5 billion will be yielded from the reform measures. Therefore, it can be seen that the cost to revenue of the tax cuts will far outweigh the proceeds from the new tax measures. In terms of benefits to the individual, it will mean that the average income earner next year will receive a tax cut of $9 a week, rising in the second year to a cumulative tax cut of $15.20 a week. With the tax cut of $7.60 a week for the average income earner announced in August 1984, the total tax cut will therefore be $22.80 by 1987-a very significant increase in take home pay. Owing to the time limitation, I will concentrate my remarks on a couple of the salient measures proposed in the tax reform package and in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) specifically. First, I turn to the question of entertainment expenses. No doubt the vast majority of members have already been visually accosted by certain huge advertisements placed in some daily papers by a group calling itself BAND-Business against Non-Deductibility. These advertisements basically decry the Government's decision to make entertainment expenses non-deductible. While this group's approach to the question of deductibility is essentially socially and economically untenable, there is still hope for its members in the business world should they ultimately decide to go into the business of producing eye charts. Let us face it, this entire issue requires perspective-not the manic pursuit of self-interested tax perks at the expense of all Australians which has been demonstrated by some members of our community. More to the point, we all know that in the past numerous business organisations have tried to entice new executives and employees by including in their salary packages a significant component entitled `entertainment allowance'. They do this knowing only too well that the bulk of this allowance will never be spent as a legitimate business expense. Rather, it is offered in order to give the employee a tax-free allowance instead of a taxable salary. This reprehensible conduct meant that the Government and all Australian taxpayers were financing the organisations' attempts to lure new employees and keep them. Members of BAND would have us all believe that most business meals are legitimate business expenses. Who are they trying to fool? Obviously the Australian public, for one. It is just the same old story rearing its ugly head when everything is fair game when one is out to rip off the Government and, through the Government, all other Australians. But when a government takes the bull by the horns and acts to stamp out abuse the hue and cry of self-interest can be heard and read across the nation. The only effective way to stamp out the abuse is to disallow entertainment expenses altogether, even if this also cuts out deductions for some legitimate expenses. No other realistic and practical alternative exists. The abuse must be stopped. I know of a businessman in my electorate who used to take his family and some of his friends out to dinner every Friday evening and charge it up as a business expense. We have already ascertained that the projected revenue saving in 1986-87 alone will be $310m which is, indeed, substantial. Restaurateurs have, to a considerable extent, portrayed themselves as losers. What a great many of them have failed to acknowledge is that as a result of the previous operation of the system the restaurant industry was effectively subsidised by the average Australian taxpayer. The effect of the tax changes will be that the restaurant industry will simply have to operate under the same conditions as other service industries. I can do little better than to quote Ross Gittins, who wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald on 25 September 1985: It is not fair for businessmen to enjoy tax-free lunches when ordinary workers cannot. It is not fair for executives to pay no tax on income spent on their cars when ordinary workers have to pay for their cars out of after-tax income. A tax system which encourages people to spend or invest their money in certain ways merely to reduce the tax they pay reduces the efficiency of the economy and causes it to grow more slowly than it otherwise would. Thus the economy will gain as a whole following the abolition of entertainment expenses. While one sector which has effectively been subsidised loses, other industries which attract the spending and which are usually more efficient will gain. I refer briefly to the substantiation requirements of the Bill. One of the principal means of combating inflated or falsified employment related expense claims is to ensure that taxpayers keep accurate records and that they are able to substantiate expense claims with documentary evidence as and when required. This is precisely what the Bill ensures. Again, some people in the community have sought to cloud this issue by misleading the average Australian by saying that all receipts and documents from hereon in will have to be sent in with their tax returns. This is misleading. It is proposed that documentary evidence will need to be available upon request. But it will not be necessary, nor will it be intended, that evidence be attached to returns as a matter of course. Taxpayers seeking to deduct the whole of any part of their expenses, particularly travel expenses, will be required to maintain daily log books or similar records. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8.00 p.m. Mr MOUNTFORD —This Government has sensibly seen fit to establish alternative bases for the establishment of car expense claims, depending upon whether the business use during a year of income can be expected to exceed 5,000 kilometres. These substantiation requirements will come into effect for the income year commencing 1 July 1986. These specified requirements show the commitment of this Government to establishing tax equity. This is to be done primarily in two ways: Firstly, by legislating specifically to remedy and remove those provisions which are subject to abuse and restructuring the taxation legislation so that uncertainties are removed, such as is the case with entertainment expenses. The second step is to monitor closely the existing and new provisions to ensure compliance with the legislation. This is precisely what the new substantiation requirements will achieve. A lot of noise has been made by restaurateurs and people purporting to represent them. I am afraid that the louder they complain and the greater the loss of jobs and livelihood they report or predict the more monstrous will the tax lurk that the Government is tying to stamp out be shown to have been. The BAND advertisement that the organisation put in the Press stated that the just alternative would be to require taxpayers to prove the legitimacy of the expenditure claimed, as is required in other areas on a normal tax return. The honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), who spoke prior to me in this debate, said that he was an accountant and mentioned that I also was an accountant. He said that remedies were available so that substantiation of expenditure could be made. I do not believe that. I practised as secretary-accountant for a private company for a number of years. I do not believe that people can properly substantiate entertainment expenses. The lurks that existed in that area are now shown to be so manifest that the Government has had to bring in legislation to stamp them out. They have been rampant for so many years that it is impossible to keep track of that type of expenditure. I speak from experience. Many of my clients used that area of expenditure to decrease the amount of tax they ordinarily should have paid. I commend the Bills to the House because I believe that after so many years they will stamp out such tax abuse. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(8.03) —The impression is being spread abroad by Government members that almost every business meal has to be a rort and there can be no substantiation of it. Only on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week, Mr Speaker, as you are fully aware, a delegation from the European Parliament visited this country. On both Tuesday and Wednesday I attended luncheons in the Parliament which were held in the dining room. We mixed with members of that delegation. The honourable member for Banks (Mr Mountford) might well say that those luncheons were rorts and that there was no reason for them but they involved the cultivation of relationships between the European Parliament and the Parliament of Australia. To come in with such a broad sword and say that no business luncheon could be legitimate is totally unfair and unjustified. This afternoon the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) made a speech which, to my mind, highlighted how out of touch Government members are on this subject. Let me state at the outset that I am not defending those who charge their own personal excesses to the system; I am just defending legitimacy. The honourable member for Canberra said that there is no such thing in Canberra as people being laid off, that here in Canberra everything is marvellous. Let me remind the honourable member-she is probably off at a dinner now-that Canberra has the highest average income in Australia. The salary levels that allow this high income level are, almost to a man, made possible by virtue of the tax contributions of the average Australian. The unemployment level in this town is the lowest in Australia at about 5 to 5 1/2 per cent. It is an unreal life. Any member from the Australian Capital Territory who says that everything is hunky-dory here in Canberra and that therefore all the other members are talking a lot of rot is completely out of touch. It makes me wonder why the people of Canberra-they have always had representatives here-were extended a say in this Parliament because they are not truly representative of the average person beyond the boundaries of this capital city. Mr Wright —Is that official Liberal Party policy? Mr DONALD CAMERON —I am just expressing a personal view following the view expressed by the honourable member for Canberra. If she can speak as she did and condemn restaurateurs and the staff I can give both her and the people of Canberra a little bit back on behalf of the people out there in real Australia. This legislation seeks to do a number of things. One of the great tragedies is that hardly any Government member has seen anything wrong with any aspect of it. The honourable member for Banks in the conclusion to his speech referred to the fact that people with motor cars were going to have to provide some form of proof of usage to show that they were not using the cars for private purposes. I speak here tonight not just as the member for Moreton but also as the Queensland President of an organisation known as the Queensland Training and Placement Activity Therapy Centre for the Blind, a charitable organisation. I remind the honourable member for Banks that the Government is also hitting charities. Some months ago the centre purchased a vehicle for its supervisor. Before that he was bringing his own car into work each day and taking it home. While he was coming to work he would pick up some blind people, bring them to our centre, and later take them home again. Under the Government's new proposals, because of that little act of decency on his part, it is charging us as an organisation. It is hitting us for approximately $1,300 a year tax because we let him take the car home. Mr Mountford —Not necessarily. Mr DONALD CAMERON —The honourable member says `not necessarily'. His alternative is to keep logs and details in every regard. The honourable member is shaking his head. This is the mentality of Australian Labor Party politicians. They just wind in more and more red tape, having people keep little books of their every movement. When I rang the office of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) about that several weeks ago, the answer came back to me: `Oh, that is not quite right. As an organisation, you might have to pay tax of only $100 a year because you have let that employee have a car.' It turned out, when we looked into it, that if he had lived around the corner and drove about 100 metres to his work place that was all right; but the average person does not live one hundred metres from his work place. In our case we are situated in South Brisbane. We want him to take the car home because if he left it in the streets of South Brisbane at night it would not last two nights. It would be gone. Mr Hollis —That says a lot for Brisbane. Mr DONALD CAMERON —The honourable member should leave a car in the heart of Sydney for a couple of nights, down in Woolloo- mooloo and some of those places, and see what happens to it. It is not a reflection on Brisbane; unfortunately it is a reflection on the entire society. I guess the people who dreamed up this type of legislation, who made a deliberate decision to include charities, do not even have the experience to understand that this kind of situation can exist. Our organisation will have to pay anything up to $1,300 a year just because we want our employee to take a car home at night. I wrote to the 17 charities that are based in my electorate. One of them-I will not name the organisation here tonight-said: `Our organisation has a fleet of 50 cars and every one of those cars is taken home at night by an employee'. Even if the employees do live around the corner and keep log books, why should charities have to be forced to make a tax payment to keep this bloated capital bubbling along in Canberra? I ask: Why? New Zealand, which introduced a so-called perks and fringe benefits type of tax, excluded charities. It excluded philanthropical and cultural organisations. But the Hawke Government, which is full of heart, excludes nobody. It is a case of one in, all in. I realise that the fringe benefits tax is not included in this legislation, but there are several aspects of it which go along similar lines. I guess many people do not understand that even a church-run charity will be caught up under the Act. The church is okay. If the local parish minister or priest has been issued with a car, he is all right; he will not be taxed. But if the church itself has a charity, such as the St Vincent de Paul Society, a tax will be imposed. We rang the Department in Canberra three times to get an explanation and were told: `Yes, this type of organisation will be caught under the tax. Those organisations are not excluded. They are only excluded if they are part of the church'. So charities, or organisations which are administered by a religious organisation as a separate entity, will be hit under the legislation. The fact that the Government has gone this far along the road and is so desperate to gather funds demonstrates that this country is in as much trouble as the economy-I refer to the interest rates which currently apply-would suggest. We are in a disastrous situation. One of the great tragedies is that there is a big rip off. On the one hand the Government is saying that it wants to lower taxes. I believe that, as an Opposition, we should reject the whole package because I do not believe the Government will be able to sustain all the promised goodies that it offered to off-balance the nasties. I do not think that the Government has the ability or the financial resources to do so. It should have brought in the goodies and let them start working. Then many people would have been prepared to say: `We will give the Government a go'. We are seeing the erosion of the standard of living of many Australians. The honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) shakes his head in disagreement. If he looks at the record of what his Government has done in about two years flat, he will see that, in respect of a person who is a little above the poverty line, the Government has a shameful record. It has set out to do a social engineering job and pull back into the field anybody who has got off his backside and pulled his weight. I do not condemn any approach to help people who are poor, but what must be understood is that the Government-I refer to the Government in the sense of the Australian Labor Party and its members-cannot keep cutting down the successful people in the private sector, because the public sector really does not help; we can do better without it. A big lump of our taxes goes to keeping public servants, whether Federal, State or local government employees, alive. All the Government has done in respect of the private sector is attack, attack, attack. We will reach the stage where the average person in private enterprise who has no job security, no guarantee of a job for life, will say: `What the heck. Why should I bust my boiler, take risks and put up my money?' Many small business people work 60 to 70 hours a week just to keep going and to keep their businesses alive. Unfortunately my time is up. I think the point can be best explained by referring to the Australian Bureau of Statistics Census form which asks people how many hours a week they work. The number of hours goes up in little segments something like five to 10 hours, 10 to 20 hours, 20 to 25 hours, 25 to 30 hours, 35 to 40 hours, and then over 40 hours. The Government is not even interested in learning how long some of the little fish shop owners, taxi cab drivers and the Greeks in their fruit shops work. Some work night and day. When their shops are closed they are at the markets buying produce for the next day or they are out the back of their shop peeling potatoes for the next lot of chips. Those are the things that are not understood by people in cushioned, protected positions, including ALP theorists who are slowly grinding this country to a very sad halt. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(8.16) —It is always a delight to follow the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron). He is a bit of a joke about this place because of some of the things he says. I heard his great litany calling for sympathy. I will be speaking on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3). This debate has been going all day. Many speakers have already canvassed the issues and, if the Whips are to be believed, so will many more after me. I believe we will be here until about 2 o'clock in the morning. It is always interesting to listen to members of the Liberal Party of Australia because they are protecting and speaking for their tax avoiding mates. They are the people who have the free lunches. I would like to know how many members of the Liberal Party have had free lunches. Few people in Australia would argue that our taxation system is in basic need of overhaul. It is in need of reform and that is what the Hawke Labor Government has been doing. It has set about carrying out the much needed reforms to the Australian taxation system. We have heard many arguments today and we will hear many more as the hours grind on this evening. The arguments from honourable members opposite are very shonky indeed. The few Opposition members who are in this House would know that this measure has public support. Each of them will admit, if they are honest, that letters are pouring into their offices from the people of Australia asking them to support the Government in its reform of the taxation system. Honourable members opposite know that. I ask honourable members opposite to listen to their constituents and support the Government. Mr Donald Cameron —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member for Throsby made an outrageous reflection on the integrity of honourable members on this side of the House. None of us have received those types of letters. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr HOLLIS —Of course honourable members opposite have received such letters. They should be honest and admit it. I have read the newspapers over the last couple of months. I have been interested in all the arguments we have heard about job losses in the hospitality trade. One report from Tasmania referred to more tourists going to Tasmania. Surely it must follow that if there will be more tourists in Tasmania there will be more jobs in the hospitality business. Some of the reports about the so-called job losses have stated that there will be more job losses than the total number of people now employed in the industry. The campaign about job losses has been dishonest. I am not aware of such job losses in my electorate of Throsby. Although there are some very good restaurants in Throsby, it is a basic working class area and very few people who live there get the opportunity that members of the Opposition and people in their areas get to have free lunches. They are basic, working class people. To make sure that I was 100 per cent right, when I knew that I would be speaking in this debate this evening, I checked today with the Commonwealth Employment Service officers in my electorate. I spoke to managers of CES offices in Dapto, Warilla and Nowra in the electorate of Gilmore and Wollongong in the electorate of my colleague the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr West), and also in Goulburn. The managers of each of those offices told me that there had not been one job lost because of this taxation package. In fact, one manager told me that he has one job on the books in the office for a chef, offering $1,000 a week-which is more than a member of parliament gets-yet he cannot fill that job. So much for the great loss of jobs being touted by the crowd opposite! Mr Blanchard —Just a scare campaign. Mr HOLLIS —As my colleague said, it is a scare campaign. For the past two and a half years the Opposition has run around this country engaging in a whole litany of scare campaigns on issues such as the assets test. This is yet another scare campaign in which it is engaged. Far be it from me to cast aspersions on people, but some people who work in the restaurant industry have one or two other jobs. There is the cash in hand business, which is one of the things that we in this Government are trying to clean up. When we talk about the tax lunch, even honourable members opposite admit that there has been a rort. I ask honourable members opposite, in all sincerity, whether they can stand with their hands on their hearts and tell me that some business person who signs a deal for $3,000, $300,000 or $3m would be worried about paying $30 for a meal. Of course not. It is a scare campaign that the Opposition is running. The Opposition has very strong views on competition. I suggest that those restaurants providing services for families will not be affected. Those restaurants providing a good service, to which people will go back and will take their families, will not be affected. Many restaurants have the great price mark-up on wine. They call it corking. A bottle of wine which can be bought in an off-licence outlet for $3 sells in a restaurant for $9 or $12. Honourable members opposite talk about those business people who will be affected by this taxation. What about the person such as myself who occasionally wanders into these places, accidentally, who is not on an expense account? I have to pay $6 for an entree and $9 or $12 for a bottle of wine that I can get down the road for $3. They should worry about these people occasionally; those who are not on an expense account. I put it to honourable members opposite, in all honesty and sincerity: If these businesses can exist only on a tax rort, have they any right to exist? What do people really think about that? Should the workers of Throsby, Ashton or other electorates in this country be expected to subsidise the business lunch? I suggest that they should not. I am not interested in the minority of Australians who have a business lunch; I am more interested in the great majority of Australian men and women who do not have a business lunch. The provisions in this Bill put up by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) can be supported on many grounds. If I were prosaic, I could say that not least of those grounds is that it is a crust to those thousands of Australian men and women whose only lunch throughout their working life has been sandwiches. Mr Lamb —Out of a brown bag. Mr HOLLIS —Out of a brown bag, as my colleague said. They are the people in whom we are interested, not those business people on free lunches. These tax measures introduced into this House are fair. They will assist the working men and women of Australia. Opposition members and their supporters have got away with too much for far too long. The Treasurer has my full support on these measures. If the Australian Democrats in another place want to side with their friends the tax avoiders, let them answer to the people of Australia. Let them come into my electorate of Throsby and tell the working men and women of Throsby, who do not have these free lunches, that they support this elite group with free lunches. One newspaper with which I usually agree is the Illawarra Daily Mercury. But in an editorial it states: `The lunch tax is hard to digest'. I suggest that the working people of Australia have had to digest too much for far too long and they are not prepared to digest the rorts supported by the crowd opposite. In fact at the moment it is not a crowd; one can see how interested they are because there are only three of them there. The working people of Australia have had to digest the nonsense from Opposition members for far too long and they will not do it any more. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(8.26) —I do not know about the attitude of electors in the electorate of the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) to these measures but I will make a reference subsequently to some surveys on this matter which provide a more authoritative source of information than the inquiries that the honourable member may have made. I address myself in this cognate debate to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4). This Bill is in the main concerned with implementing elements of the Government's tax reform, so-called, package, so-called, of 19 September. I say so-called `reform' because, as I argued in a previous speech dealing with the proposals as a whole, it fails the test of significant and lasting reform in terms of the shape of change to which the Treasurer (Mr Keating) was passionately attached a few months ago; namely, to reduce substantially the excessive reliance in the Australian tax system on personal income tax, with a particular focus on changing the present exploitative 47 per cent, 49 per cent and 61 per cent marginal tax rates-and, I add, the low thresholds at which they become operative-that is, reducing the tax rates and increasing the thresholds. I stress the matter of the thresholds because in his September statement the Treasurer said: . . . at the beginning of the 1970s the top rate came in at the current equivalent of $110,000, today it comes in at $35,000. He made this reference to the threshold but, of course, he does not propose to do anything about it. He is not in a position to do anything about it. A moment ago I referred to the so-called `package'. It is not a package in the meaningful sense of a group of related measures having a coherent sense of purpose and direction. What this legislation amounts to is a gathering together of the ad hoc remnants of the original tax reform proposals, and principally the heavily ideological anti-business measures in those proposals, to provide revenue for tax reductions from 1 September 1986 and more extensively from 1 July 1987. While they are to be welcomed, they are a long way short of fundamental reform and indeed from the Treasurer's initial intention. The measures also will provide only part of the revenue, and the smaller part. In 1986-87 they will provide a net $705m of the projected cost of $2 billion and in 1987-88 $1.3 billion of a projected cost of $4.5 billion. How can that be dressed up and dignified with the term `package'? Mr Webster —It's impossible. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —It is impossible, as my colleague says. The Opposition has been accused, principally by the Treasurer, of being opportunist and expedient in approving of the changes-the reductions-in the marginal tax rates but opposing a number of the measures to produce revenue in order to lower the rates. Mr Hand —You are. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Well, we reject that as a charge without substance. It is nothing more than a debating point by the glib Treasurer who is rapidly moving to the status of failed world's best Treasurer. For, of course, we would accept and approve of the proposed reductions in high marginal rates-of the 61 per cent rate down to 50 per cent and the 47 per cent and 49 per cent rates to 41 per cent. There is very little change in the other rates and no change to the two low threshholds. To reduce high marginal tax rates is a primary objective of Opposition policy, so of course we accept and approve of those changes. However, the ultimate `reform' is inadequate enough and, as tax cuts, fiscal drag will have eroded much of the value. But as to the hotchpotch of revenue proposals, firstly, as we have seen, they will provide only a small part of the revenue required. Secondly, there is no unifying principle among those measures that render it inappropriate to look at each one on its merits and to reject those that offend basic principles of taxation or are otherwise unacceptable. Thirdly, in any event the measures proposed are not the only option available to finance tax cuts. They may be to this Government, which is subject to veto by the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Indeed, the proposed broad-based consumption tax in the Government's White Paper and so enthusiastically embraced by the Treasurer was vetoed by the alliance of the ACTU and the Labor Party's left wing. That does not apply to this Opposition. Indeed, `gradual and predictable changes to the indirect tax base to allow significant cuts in income tax' is a specific component of our existing policy. So is the reduction of expenditure-the only true starting point for tax reform, which the White Paper which the Government was proceeding on specifically eschewed. Those are not the only other options available, though that is a topic for another day. Against that background, the major thrust of this taxation legislation is to implement the Hawke Government's objective to deny the deduction of all entertainment expenses incurred after the Treasurer's statement of 19 September last. The Treasurer's argument is set out in the 19 September statement, and I quote: The Government can no longer allow the general body of taxpayers to subsidise the largely social activities of people-usually well-off people-- note the `soak the rich' approach-- through deductions for entertainment expenses. The only effective way of preventing tax deductions for essentially private entertainment that is claimed to have a business purpose is to disallow deductions for entertainment altogether. It is recognised that this will mean that, in a number of cases, deductions will be denied for genuine business expenses. There is, however, no practical alternative to disallowance across the board if effective action is to be taken to stop abuse in this area. It is no part of the Opposition's purpose to deny that there is some `abuse in this area' or to be supportive of misuse. Nevertheless, this is a totally unacceptable approach. It breaches the basic principle of taxation that expenditure on entertainment, along with anything else, that is properly and fairly incurred as part of earning income should be allowed as a deduction-the principle enshrined in section 51 (1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act. While there is undoubtedly some abuse, equally genuine business entertainment can be a proper expense incurred in generating income-an important means of generating business, getting a business order, or of cementing a particular contract. The danger, of course, is that if we reject this as an expense just because it is very hard to administer one way or the other, where do we then go-perhaps to advertising expenditure or something like that. Then we are into a very dangerous setup indeed with the beginning of a general attack on allowable business expenses. I have no doubt that the Treasurer and his colleagues thought that it was smart to conduct a crusade against the business lunch but-this is the point I was making to the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis)-I suspect that, as with the thrust of other parts of this whole so-called tax reform package with its undoubted underlying hostility towards business, the Government has misjudged the electorate in this regard. A recent poll in the Australian newspaper found that some 63 per cent of respondents believe that the prohibition on the `business lunch' should either be abandoned altogether or the proposals modified to be less severe. In the event, as witnessed in this Bill, the across the board condemnation of the business lunch, which is supposedly the only practical way to deal with this problem, has not proved to be so simple, and the pressures of logic, common sense and politics have mounted. So, when the Government was led to accept that staff canteens are all right, it was also bound to concede that boardroom lunches are tax deductible and so it goes on. As a result, the Bill requires 8 1/2 pages of text in the Bill and 15 pages in the explanatory memorandum to give effect to the desired prohibition. The Treasurer might just as well have gone straight to a rational tax deductibility system for business entertainment from the start, rather than denying its practicability. The Opposition amendment, which has been moved by my colleague the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), amounts to requiring that course. So it is in that sense which is in line with the majority of opinion in the electorate, as evidenced by such surveys, that the Opposition has taken this attitude. Indeed, when it comes to integrity and straight shooting, the boot is on the other foot. We are told, on page 25 of the Treasurer's statement, that this proposal to deny deductions for business entertainment will yield some $310m in 1986-87. Yet it is well known that in fact no detailed calculation exists to support that, either in the Taxation Office or the Treasury. So we have a tax reform proposal that promises to deliver a change in marginal tax rates, which is something of a wimp, and meanwhile there is the immediate effect of a significant additional impact on business, widely estimated at 18 per cent. What a time to do that. I conclude on this note: Notwithstanding the protestations of the Treasurer and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), this country is not back to the degree of international competitiveness of the 1970-72 per- iod. We have a yawning deficit in the balance of payments, symptomatic of the country living beyond its means, of which the most visible and culpable manifestation has been the Hawke Government's biggest ever spending and its succession of massive Budget deficits. There has been the record 20 to 25 per cent depreciation of the Australian dollar, which, given the chance, can begin to turn this around. But the business sector, which has the responsibility to do it, has to cope with an accord which delivers a 3.8 per cent wage increase when all experience and common sense cries out for a lesser or nil increase, and record Himalayan level interest rates increasing costs and inhibiting necessary new investment. Into that scene the Government has injected this tax reform `package' with its underlying hostility to business, raising the tax liabilities of business, impairing its competitiveness, and reducing its profitability and the incentive to invest and employ. I think ideology and political prejudice have a lot to answer for. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(8.39) —I usually enjoy following the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards) because he is one of the more intelligent members on that side of the House, and we on this side know that there are so few of them. Tonight I was a little disappointed because there was the usual abuse of statistics by selectivity, which is so easy to do. He should have listened to the comments by both the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) and the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) on the effect of this legislation on the hospitality industry. I think there has been a scare campaign which people have tried to impress upon the general public, but without success. I support the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) and cognate Bills, which are part of a package of legislation aimed at reforming the Australian taxation system. The system in fact had become a non-system, one in which widespread avoidance and evasion had become a national sport and an economic disaster. Tragically, the Opposition, when in government, did nothing to overcome the problems. Those who were fortunate enough to have higher than average incomes rorted the system, while there was real and growing poverty in the wider community. Tax reform alongside economic growth are essential elements in any commitment to eliminate poverty in Australia. When this Government came to power in March 1983 we inherited a rundown economy-an economy with double digit inflation and double digit unemployment. We had gross inequalities between those with well-paid and secure jobs and those unable to work, those unable to earn much more than the minimum wage and many dependent on pensions and benefits. Without a tax system that is able, equitably and efficiently, to nurture sustained levels of economic growth and to raise the revenue required to finance the achievement of both social and economic goals, no comprehensive strategy to eliminate poverty will be realised. The tax system, or non-system, has placed a very severe burden on many low income earners. The Department of Social Security in its Policy Review Branch booklet `Trends in the Incomes of Australian Families' made the point, on page 29, that some pensioners, beneficiaries and other low income earners paying income tax and receiving government help can: face effective marginal tax rates far in excess of the highest marginal tax rate within the personal income tax system of 60 per cent and can be actually worse off financially by earning additional income. We have seen the interaction of the income testing of government transfers and concessions, with the effects of personal income tax rates, leading to poverty traps where at certain low income levels people are discouraged from taking up employment. They are effectively trapped into living on incomes below the poverty line. Inequality leads to affluence on the one hand and to poverty on the other. This Government's task is to tackle the problem of inequality in our Australian society. These Bills are a serious attempt to make a start at redressing inequality in our society. However, it must be clearly understood that the redistributive effects of tax reform are of no benefit to very low income earners who pay little or no tax. There is still need for an income security system, affordable housing for all Australians and better job training and job creation. These are areas of concern which this Government is also tackling as part of its overall economic strategy. I turn specifically to the Social Security (Poverty Traps Reduction) Bill 1985 which was introduced in this House by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe). As the Minister indicated in his second reading speech, the attack on poverty traps through this Bill will have three results: firstly, it will leave more money in the pockets of hundreds of thousands of people on social security with some private income; secondly, it will ease the transition from welfare to work for people such as supporting parents who are temporarily out of the permanent paid work force; and, thirdly, it will provide an incentive to all persons on social security to provide for themselves, either through part time work or investment. The reforms contained in this Bill concentrate on groups of special concern to this Government such as the aged, children in poverty-particularly in sole parent families-pensioners and the unemployed renting in the private market. From 1 November 1986 the amount of private income that a pensioner may earn before his or her income is reduced under the income test will be increased by $10 a week for single pensioners and by $20 a week for pensioner couples. This increases the income tax free areas from $30 a week to $40 a week for single pensioners and from $50 a week to $70 a week for pensioner couples. This means that the pension payments received by all of the 450,000 recipients who currently receive a part rate pension will be increased by up to $5 a week. I remind the House that the income tax free areas have been increased only once since 1972. This increase has been warmly welcomed by pensioner groups in the community. It has been warmly welcomed in my electorate of Moore. At present, an amount of $6 a week for each child is disregarded in applying the pension income test. This measure will increase the amount to $12 a week and will mean an increase in pension of up to $3 a week for each child for all of the 50,000 part time pensioners with child- ren. Again, I remind the House that the income disregard has not been increased since 1972. Further, its real value, as a consequence of movements in the general level of prices and incomes since 1972, has been greatly reduced. Another measure which has received wide community support is that of rent assistance. The separate income test for rent assistance will be abolished for both pensioners and beneficiaries. Many pensioners and beneficiaries are today paying 50 per cent or more of their total incomes on rent in the private market. This Bill will assist them. Those pensioners and beneficiaries renting in the private market currently receive rental assistance of up to $15 a week. This measure will remove the income test on rent assistance. It is estimated that 300,000 people will receive an increased payment of up to $15 a week as a result of this measure. I accept that in these Bills we have only just restarted the road to reform which will create a better, more equitable Australian society. This road was commenced by those great Australian Prime Ministers, Curtin, Chifley and, at a later stage, Whitlam. Despite the claims of some members of the Opposition that this Government has not come to grips with poverty traps, the Social Security (Poverty Traps Reduction) Bill 1985 is a serious attempt to meet the problems in this area. I too would have liked an earlier introduction of the measures contained in this Bill. I trust that the Minister will note the concerns expressed on both sides of the House regarding this issue. However, I am fully aware of the financial constraints imposed at this stage on this Government. In conclusion, in relation to the tax Bills, I would like to read from a submission to the Economic Planning Advisory Council from the Brotherhood of St Laurence dated January 1985. On page 15 it states: The removal of tax concessions would probably also make the tax system more neutral in its impact on people's activities and bahaviour. Neutrality is sometimes cited as one of the criteria important in tax design. While it is sometimes distorted and over emphasised we consider the tax system should not unduly influence people's behaviour unless there are sound social reasons. Tax concessions often do this and therefore make this tax system less neutral as well as less efficient and equitable. The Campbell Committee suggested reducing the favourable tax treatment of superannuation on the grounds of neutrality, equity and efficiency. There are therefore many advantages associated with eliminating tax concessions. In particular, the tax system would be fairer and government assistance would be more visible and open to more effective planning. . . . . The removal of many tax concessions would simultaneously make the tax system simpler and more equitable. There are not many reform options that can achieve both greater equity and greater simplicity at the same time. I support the Bills that are before the House. Mr HICKS(Riverina-Darling)(8.50) —I wish to speak in this cognate debate particularly on the Social Security (Poverty Traps Reduction) Bill 1985, which aims to reduce poverty traps experienced by many people who rely on government pensions or allowances as their main source of income. Today the groups most likely to be poor and caught in poverty traps are: Firstly, single unemployment beneficiaries, especially those out of work for extended periods; secondly, pensioners and beneficiaries with children, especially sole parents; and, thirdly, pensioners and beneficiaries in private rental accommodation. The change in characteristics of the poor, away from the aged and towards young adults and children, is due to two major factors. The first is the sharp increase in the number of single parent families and unemployment beneficiaries. In New South Wales in 1984 there were nearly 99,000 children dependent on supporting parent beneficiaries and 93,000 children dependent on unemployment beneficiaries. This trend is encouraged by these groups falling into so-called poverty traps. In 1973, 4.4 per cent of Australian children were dependent on pensioners and beneficiaries. In 1984 this figure had increased to 18.2 per cent of all children and this is a dramatic increase. The high rate of youth unemployment and the large proportion of children dependent on pensioners and beneficiaries mean that a sizable proportion of young people do not have the opportunity to develop their full potential. Given the evidence on the relativity of pensions and benefits to the poverty line, especially to sole parents and families with children, it is not unreasonable to assume that most of these children are growing up in poverty. The second factor contributing to the increase in poverty among families with children is the failure of successive governments to index additional benefits paid for children. This is highlighted by the fact that the extra payment of $14 for each child of a pensioner or beneficiary is 9 per cent less in real terms than it was eight years ago. Also, the $10 a week mother's allowance is 20 per cent less in value than it was eight years ago, and family allowances have increased only once since 1976. Their real value has fallen by 23 per cent. Thus the policy of successive governments has contributed to real reductions in the allowances available to people rearing children. The Government's decision to increase the amount of additional allowable income for pensioners with children from $6 to $12 per child, hopefully will assist those raising children on a pension. A major grievance of those trying to earn a little extra income is the harsh income test that is applied to any extra earnings. Many pensioners or beneficiaries who try to increase their income by finding some part time work can find themselves taxed at a rate which is higher than that imposed on the highest income earners, which is currently 60c in the dollar. Of almost every dollar earned, an average of over 50c will be lost through the means test when this legislation becomes effective in November 1986. For those pensioner couples who earn an additional income of between $423 and $453 a week, the effective marginal tax rate is 94 per cent. I repeat that figure: Ninety-four per cent. For a single supporting parent with two children the effective marginal tax rate when additional income reaches $374 a week is also 94 per cent. This serves as a disincentive to working and traps people into the social security system and into poverty. Unfortunately, this legislation does not go any- where near far enough towards abolishing poverty traps. However, what I especially find of great concern is that at present it is discouraging to parents-who, in terms of their self esteem, would prefer to help support themselves and their children-to find that of any additional income earned, over half is lost. If they earn a bit more, they lose their fringe benefits and the income becomes taxable. The permissible earnings for pensioners have not kept pace with changes in the value of money. This situation was highlighted on the front page of the Canberra Times on 15 November, when a single supporting mother advised the unemployed and single supporting parents wishing to get off social security payments and go back into the work force not to bother. After paying her expenses out of her gross wage of $509 a fortnight, this lady is worse off than she was on the pension, receiving the benefits to which she was entitled. Fortunately, this mother has a responsible attitude and feels that she should be earning her own money and not just existing on handouts. However, with the system the way it is, many people take the attitude that they are better off staying on social security benefits and remaining in that poverty trap, regardless of their potential in the long term to increase their earnings through advancement in employment. Increasing the amount that social security recipients can earn from $30 to $40 a week for single pensioners and from $50 to $70 a week for pensioner couples is a step in the right direction. The present system also discourages people from saving. Few people on a pension or benefit can save, but this can be a problem for age pensioners who may receive a small income through work or investments. Receiving that little extra income can leave them with a reduced pension or, more commonly, cut out their entitlements to fringe benefits. Many age pensioners have stated that they prefer to hide their money at home rather than deposit it in a bank, and we all know how dangerous that practice can be. A major expense for people on pensions and benefits is rent. People who rent in the private market are likely to have to pay out more than people owning their own homes or renting public housing. Currently, rent assistance is reduced by 50 cents from the first dollar of private income for every dollar of non-pension or benefit income. As from November 1986, the separate income test for rent assistance will be abolished for both pensioners and beneficiaries. That is a welcome move, but why wait until November 1986 before it will be implemented? The aspect of poverty which has not been addressed in any specific sense at all in the Government's Budget is that of poverty in rural townships. The majority of rural Australians are not farmers and, individually, poor rural people are not much different from their metropolitan counterparts, although rural profiles include a greater proportion of the at risk of poverty categories, such as aged people and large families. In addition, unemployment for a long duration is distressingly the norm in rural townships and dislocation and structural changes in the agricultural and pastoral industries are likely to mean that this trend will continue in the foreseeable future. What exacerbates the problem for the rural poor is their geographical location and isolation. At the time of the Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty, the relative incidence of poverty was greatest in rural areas. There is no real evidence to suggest that the level of rural poverty has declined in the past decade. My colleague the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), the shadow spokesman on Veterans Affairs, recently spoke at length in the House on this issue. Given the scenario of poverty and disadvantage, the welfare support networks in rural communities assume monumental importance. Access to services such as health, education, communication, transport, government departments and voluntary agencies which city pensioners take for granted are extremely limited in the country. People with skills are scarce and service delivery comparable to that available in provincial towns and cities is unheard of. Given the current unemployment situation, and there is no indication that many of the traineeships offered under Priority One will be available in rural towns, policies which revolve around farm restructuring, which effectively means moving people off farms, are not very attractive as a means of alleviating poverty in the country. The best solution to poverty is still adequately paid employment for those able to undertake it. No 1985 Budget programs have been designed to create jobs in the rural community, and no funds have been earmarked to support the social infrastructure of rural areas. In fact, the winding down of the family support services scheme will detrimentally affect welfare groups operating in remote communities. Much Federal legislation has a direct bearing on how people in unfortunate circumstances are able to survive, but State governments also have a responsibility which the New South Wales Government presently seems to be shirking, with its reduction of emergency funding through the New South Wales Youth and Community Services Department. This has placed greater strain on those voluntary organisations which have provided invaluable service over many years for the poor and underprivileged. Although it is unwise to mention particular organisations in case some of them are not recognised, I know that all honourable members would join me in thanking organisations such as the Salvation Army, the St Vincent De Paul Society, the Brotherhood of St Laurence, the Smith Family, Legacy and other religious and lay organisations which assist us in providing for the poor when the Federal and State systems prove to be inadequate. One such organisation is Silver City Charities of Broken Hill, which, in three decades, has raised and distributed over $1m for the poor and needy. There are others of which I would not be aware because like Silver City Charities they wish to remain anonymous in their work. In addition to the economic costs of large sections of the community being dependent on welfare for long periods, there are the individual and social costs. There is much evidence about the relationship between poverty and a variety of social need indicators. In order that the long term social and economic consequences of children and young people growing up in poverty be avoided, the Government must revise its policies and programs to attack the causes of poverty in the areas of income security, child and youth allowances, employment, housing and community services. In a reasonably affluent society which sees itself as being just, the assumptions of justice and equity are threatened by evidence that considerable proportions of the community are living in poverty, strangled by poverty traps. However, when those who are living in poverty are children and very young adults, the social consequences are so far-reaching that moral disquiet is a totally inadequate response. If the Government is so aware of the very real threat of social security recipients falling into and remaining in poverty traps, why is it waiting until November 1986-one full year away-before it gives effect to this Bill which we are now debating? If the Government is serious about its attempt to help social security recipients to get out of the poverty trap, it should make this legislation effective immediately. I support the steps outlined in this Bill which are aimed at reducing poverty traps, but I call on the Government to implement these changes immediately, not in 12 months time when the benefits discussed will have been eroded by the effects of inflation. I also call on the Government to take positive action to support the traditional family unit instead of supporting-as it appears to do now-those who would tend to destroy this important and fundamental unit of our society. One result of this would be that we would not have to be so concerned about these poverty traps and similar legislation. Mr SAUNDERSON(Aston)(9.02) —I rise to support the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) and cognate Bills. In doing so I must say that it is refreshing to some extent to hear an Opposition member stand up and say that some of the things we are doing are right. It is a pity that he stopped half way. The honourable member for Riverina-Darling (Mr Hicks) has recognised the fact that the Social Security (Poverty Traps Reduction) Bill attacks a number of areas in which people have been disadvantaged and it will provide some very real benefits for those people. The honourable member says that we should be doing this now, but he knows that this is a tax package and the part of the tax package which actually raises the income to help pay for the benefits to these people contains the very things that he and other Opposition members oppose. In effect he is saying: `Yes, you are doing the right thing by helping those in need, you are doing the right thing by reducing personal income tax, but we do not support your raising any money in order to do it'. Mr Beale —You could cut spending. Mr SAUNDERSON —Here we go. The good old dry on the Opposition benches is calling for a cut in spending. Of course he has not come up with any ideas himself as to how spending should be cut. He knows that when his Government was last in office it spent more than a year with its razor gang trying to work out how to cut public spending. There was a big announcement, the big razor gang was all lined up, and what did it save? The end result was absolutely nothing. Where did the previous Government go with its spending? Let us look at the record of its deficit-the one that it left to us when we came into office. It was heading up to $9 billion. That was the previous Government's record on how to cut government spending. The very fact that we have had such a large rise in the number of people who are dependent on the pension has been due in the main to the previous Government's policies of creating huge amounts of unemployment and the associated problems and difficulties that we have. The poverty trap propositions which we have put up will provide significant benefits for a large number of pensioners and these are to be applauded. In some cases pensioners will receive in excess of $26 a week more than the amount they currently receive. That must be recognised by everybody as a step in the right direction. The tax package itself was referred to by an earlier speaker who said that it was not a package because it did not have a direction. It is quite obvious that he really had not looked at it in total because the tax reform package is indeed a package and does have a direction. It is working towards providing significant reductions in personal income tax. At the same time, it is helping those in the poverty trap area who are receiving social security benefits. It is removing the rorts in the system. As the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard) said earlier, the taxation system in Australia had fallen into such disrepute that it had become a sport for people to see how much they could rort the system. One of the areas where the rort was becoming extremely significant involved those who had credit cards. If they were in a club they could have lunch and put it down as business entertainment. I have never heard so much hypocrisy from the restaurant industry and members of the Opposition on that very issue. If we believe them, it must be the case that the whole of the Australian business world has degenerated to the extent that businessmen cannot make a decision unless they can go to a pub or a restaurant, have a meal and drink half a dozen bottles of chardonnay. It has been obvious, since we made the announcement in relation to entertainment expenses, that the entertainment tax campaign is nothing more than a scare tactic. A few weeks ago, when Parliament was sitting, I went to the Parliamentary Library and looked at the newspapers. Interestingly enough, on the same day the morning newspapers of Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne carried separate Press announcements by local restaurant groups in each of those cities. In Brisbane the spokesperson said that 1,000 people in Brisbane had been sacked that week. In Sydney the spokesperson said that 1,000 people had been sacked in Sydney. In Melbourne the spokesperson said that 1,000 people had been sacked in Melbourne. It is strange that exactly the same number of people were sacked in each of the three capital cities. People believe those claims and yet the campaign is a scare tactic that has no basis. As the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) said, over the last week or so the Commonwealth Employment Service offices have shown that there has been no increase in the number of people in the restaurant industry registering as unemployed. They aslo indicated that the same regular rate of job vacancies in that industry is still appearing at those offices. The factual evidence shows that job vacancies in the industry still exist and that there is not evidence of more people registering as unemployed. Clearly, the scare campaign is nothing more than that. It is an attempt to build up the issue. During the last parliamentary break I was in my electorate office when I received a letter from a lobby group supporting the restaurant industry in trying to have the non-tax deductibility of entertainment expenditure removed. The letter came from Western Australia but it carried a Sydney phone number. My secretary decided to telephone to find out who was behind the lobby group from Western Australia. Lo and behold, when she rang the number it belonged to a Sydney French restaurant. The person who answered thought we wanted to book for a meal. When we asked him about the lobby group he said that we would have to wait because the boss did not come in until the evening. Mr Staples —The restaurant was probably full. Mr SAUNDERSON —The restaurant was very busy. It did not have any tables left. This is the sort of thing we are facing. We are not talking about the hospitality industry at large. In my electorate there has been no evidence of any downturn in the industry. In my electorate and the the surrounding areas all I can find are thriving little businesses which are doing very well. The only restaurants I have heard complaining have been the very high class, high quality restaurants which operate at very high prices. They had been over-inflating their prices because they knew that the poeple coming in did not care. They were not paying for their meals. The Government and, in reality, the working people of Australia were paying for them. While they were sitting in their cafeterias or at their work benches eating sandwiches the bosses and their mates were having meals at the Melbourne Club or one of the posher restaurants around Melbourne or Sydney. The reality is that there is absolutely no justification for tax deductibility applying to people who go down to the pub and have a meal while they talk about business. No one who suggests that the only way he can carry on a business is by going down to the pub and getting a few bottles of chardonnay or red wine and having a meal can justify that position. If a person is serious about doing business he will obviously do it when sober and when in the office with the information in front of him rather than down the pub drawing on the back of napkins. There can be no justification even for moving towards the propositions that have been put forward by the Opposition or the Australian Democrats. What they are really saying is: `Yes, there has been some rorting of the system, but we should allow just a little tax cheating-not a lot, just a little'. We cannot have that. In my view we have to treat everyone the same. We cannot allow just a little bit of tax cheating. This particular tax deduction had become nothing but a rort whereby business people were having dinner with their families on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights and then claiming the cost as a business expense. These people know, as do all members of the Opposition and the Australian Democrats, that it is impossible for the Commissioner of Taxation to verify whether all those meals on all those occasions were in fact legitimate expenses. They know that the only real way to go is the way which the Government has gone-that is, to ban such deductions and so allow the benefits that we can provide as a result to flow to all of the community. I support the Bills. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(9.12) —Listening to this debate tonight, especially the contributions of members of the Government, fills me with great sorrow because this Government has been given an outstanding opportunity to introduce a range of tax reforms into this country which can be of very real benefit, especially at a time when the objective of tax reform must surely be not to `kill the goose that lays the golden egg.' If ever there were a time in the recent history of this nation when we have needed every opportunity to encourage people's initiative throughout this country to `give it a go', to create employment opportunities and so feel free to try to make a quid, as the expression goes, and not be ashamed of profit, it is now. Instead of that we hear speaker after speaker on the Government side giving us once again diatribes about the socialist dialectic-that somehow or other it is sinful to make money; it is sinful to make a profit; it is sinful to create jobs, apparently, except of course if they are jobs in the public sector. So the litany goes on. Members of the Government will pay the price at the next election when the Australian people see them for what they really are, when all the rubbish and all the humbug of the last three-odd years is stripped off them and we see Labor in relation to the total catastrophy that their economic policies will bring upon this country. The tax package we are debating tonight is yet another element of those policies, another nail in the Government's political coffin. The Opposition, on the other hand, has been consistent and totally responsible in its approach to tax reform. We have offered support to the Government for sensible measures that would equitably reduce the burden of income tax to all Australian taxpayers because we believe that that is the only route which will restore the incentive to individuals that has been eroded by continually high marginal rates of income tax in recent years. Our parties are therefore committed to a policy based on expenditure reduction as the only true starting point for taxation reform-a factor which the honourable member for Aston (Mr Saunderson) apparently totally missed when he spoke. He asked where cuts could be made in spending. May I give him one simple suggestion. There are now some 127-there are probably more since I last counted- individual income support and maintenance programs being administered by no fewer than 11 different Federal departments. Mr Beale —How many? Mr CONNOLLY —At the last count there were 127. If a government cannot save, by sensible administrative reform, at least $1 billion it is not fit to be a government in this country. Why this Government has failed over three years-in all fairness I have to say that successive governments have also failed-is because it has tended to have incremental growth on program development without examining the principles against which those programs ought to be judged. Until that is done we will continue down this route of Ministers coming into this House and continually saying: `We cannot reduce expenditure any more'. The simple fact is that the Australian people do not believe the Government. The people are sick of high levels of tax. They believe the time has come for a serious restructuring of public administration to ensure that where there is a need for programs for people who clearly need support that must be provided in the most cost effective manner possible. We have not seen one skerrick during the last three years of the Hawke Government's serious determination to face up to these fundamental realities. Until the Government does that it will not succeed with taxation reform, because the essence of its reform is to squeeze those in the community who are doing their bit to create employment and wealth, who are trying to get this country back on to its feet and who are trying to improve the capacity of export industry, improve our gross export domestic product and improve our balance of payments. In addition, there is a belief in the Opposition that we have to seek gradual and predictable changes to the indirect tax base to allow significant cuts in income tax. We believe that an option for income splitting by families must be considered and that a tax rebate for child care expenses is essential, as we emphasised during the last election campaign. Fundamental to economic growth is our belief that we must reject the concept of capital gains taxes in Australia. We are getting close to becoming a Third World country. We must create wealth. It will not be created on the basis of a principle whereby it is taxed out of existence as soon as it has the temerity to appear. Taxation relief for individuals and families must be substantial and financed responsibly; otherwise the resulting tax cuts, as we will see within the next 12 months or so, will be illusory. I am prepared to make a prediction in this House that the first set of promised tax cuts may be seen, but I am certain that the Australian people will not see the second set because there will probably be an election in the meantime. The Government will make a desperate attempt to be re-elected as it sees the economy collapsing around it. Following the failure of the Government at the National Taxation Summit to gain the agreement of the trade union movement to its preferred option C, the Government came up with this so-called package of proposals. On 19 September last year the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) put forward nine principles which he saw as being the basis for taxation reform. For the benefit of the House, the eighth concept reads: Eighth, any reform must provide the best possible climate for investment, growth and employment in Australia. So much for that. What we have heard in the debate today is ample evidence presented by members of the Opposition to the effect that at least in one industry-that is, the entertainment industry-as a result of the Government's policy, many restaurants and entertainment centres will be closed down. As a result, people will lose their jobs. One honourable member-I think it might have been the honourable member for Aston-observed that he could not find any restaurants suffering in his electorate. Perhaps his electorate does not have any. There may be a few fish and chips shops but not much more than that. The simple fact of the matter is that as a result of an examination of the industry people in Sydney in recent days I have been assured that most have had cuts in their usage by up to two-thirds of their normal capacity. They cannot keep their doors open on that basis. The first people who will suffer are the part time workers who depend on the employment generated by that industry. A second group will be the permanent, trained personnel who are also in the industry. We heard an earlier Government speaker ask: `Why should we worry? We are going to have tourists coming here. That will be our solution'. We were told that Tasmania would be the mecca of Australian tourism but let us look at the realities. The simple fact of the matter is that tourists are seasonal. A person who runs a restaurant cannot survive on a seasonal market. That argument is merely a clear demonstration of the inability of members of this Government to understand the basic principles of business management. Until the Government understands them it will not be in a position of being able to tell the Australian people, by virtue of the advice given by the Treasury or anybody else, what the impact of its policy proposals will be. The ninth principle which was enunciated by the Prime Minister as a result of an interview on radio during the last election campaign was: Any reform package must have widespread community support, including support at a widely representative national tax summit of economic organisations and community groups. I have already disposed of the Tax Summit; it was a disaster. The Government could have accepted the proposals that it wanted. In a fit of pique and utter desperation it has come up with this extraordinary so-called package of proposals which, as I said earlier, are based on the doctrinal concept of ripping it off the so-called rich. Yet the Government ignores the fact that some 47 per cent of the work force in Australia is receiving fringe benefits, including the general secretaries and the deputy general secretaries of the various trade unions which sent most Government members here. Let us look at the other question which is so important. As I said, the Prime Minister put forward his nine principles and he emphasised that these principles and the legislation which would flow from them had to have widespread representative national support. In today's Australian there was a very interesting poll which gives the lie, if ever that were necessary, to the Government's claims about the level of real support in the community for its grandiose proposals. On one side we have the Confederation of Australian Industry, the CAI, the Metal Trades Industry Association of Australia, the MTIA-organisations which are the representatives of the basic heavy industries of this land. They are vital industries which Senator Button in another place has often emphasised, through the Government's programs and development schemes, must be preserved. However, these organisations have emphasised that if the Government cuts off the umbilical cord of economic growth, as it is doing, certainly it will not achieve the grandiose objectives of its development programs or anything else. Let us look at the record in terms of what the community has said on these proposals. Only 18.1 per cent of people believe that the business entertainment tax should be retained in its present form. The latest news poll found that 55.2 per cent believe that the tax should be modified to allow deductions, compared with only 34 per cent of people interviewed at an earlier poll. Obviously, whatever industry campaigns may be in place, they are succeeding. They are bringing home to the Australian people the facts that the Government does not have community support, and without community support no democratic government can survive in this land. The Australian people are sick of being ripped off by this Government. They are sick of its making promises it cannot keep. The time is not far distant when they will tell the Government to pack its bags and baggage and return to where it belongs-on the opposition benches of this House. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(9.24) —In debating the provisions of the Taxation Law Amendment Bill (No. 3), the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4), the Social Security (Poverty Traps Reduction) Bill and the Australian Capital Territory Stamp Duty Amendment Bill members of the Opposition have, in their usual negative manner, embarked on a wholesale side-swiping of the proposed Government action. Take the comments of the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), who castigated Government members for allegedly believing that `it is sinful to make money'. We do not believe that it is sinful to make money, but I certainly believe that it would be sinful for a comparatively affluent country like Australia to give making money per se a higher priority than alleviating the poverty which has existed for some years. I refer also to the contribution of the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) who, to be fair, does not make a habit of extreme negativism. After implying earlier today that tax reform should mean a simplification of the system and a reduction in the amount of tax paid, he proceeded to attack the Government for its `retreat' on some aspects of its tax reform package. To effect reform by reducing every Australian's tax liability would be impossible. It is ludicrous. How could it be done? How would essential services be maintained and the economic lift which the Hawke Government has effected continue if every person, no matter how affluent, no matter how many tax perks are enjoyed and no matter how much tax is avoided must, as a result of a reform package, pay less tax? To put it bluntly, how could the majority of honest, hardworking taxpayers, who for years have been carrying the burden of the tax dodgers, obtain justice and a fair share of the national cake if those dodgers were to pay less tax? It is obviously unrealistic. The honourable member's argument gets curiouser and curiouser. He moved on to attack the Hawke Government for its alleged retreat from certain tax measures. Members of the Opposition should get their act together. From the former Treasurer and new Leader, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), down, they should decide whether they believe that tax reform means more or less tax revenue and, if less, how they would fund policies to fulfil the needs of Australia. The Hawke Government has made its decision. It has given Australia strong yet compassionate leadership. Using decisive fiscal and social policies as tools, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and his capable Ministers have changed the direction of Australia from the steep decline of early 1983 to an upward path which has given Australia new hope. Jointly with the prices and incomes accord and the initiatives of the last three Budgets the measures debated today form part of the economic strategies which have effected this change of direction. As part of its tax reform package the Government has waged a major assault on poverty traps. This will be effected through three major measures designed to offer financial relief to those in most need of it. The Government has decided that the amount pensioners can earn before their pensions will be reduced will rise from $30 to $40 per week for single pensioners and from $50 to $70 per week for couples. This will mean that 450,000 pensioners who presently receive a part pension will get a pension increase of up to $5 a week. In addition, the amount of extra income which pensioners with children can earn before their pensions will be reduced will be doubled from $6 to $12 per week for each child. This is the first increase in this limit since 1972 and will mean an increase in the pension of up to $3 per week for each child for the 50,000 part rate pensioners with children. The Government has decided also that pensioners and beneficiaries who rent private accommodation no longer will be subject to a separate income test in assessing their eligibility for the rental assistance payments of up to $15 a week. From November next year rent assistance will be added to payments and will be subject to the normal income test. At present the income test means that the allowance is reduced by 50 per cent for each dollar of income earned. This will mean that nearly 300,000 part pensioners will receive an increase of up to $15 a week. The three measures will operate from the first pension pay day in November 1986. They are expected to cost about $140m in the 1986-87 financial year and $215m in the full year. It is important to note that the Federal Government is not unaware of the stringent economic circumstances in which many pensioners may find themselves, despite the measures contained in this legislation. In a situation where it is simply a financial impossibility to meet all needs immediately, the Government has moved to meet the top priority of easing the financial situations of those in the worst positions. It is part of an ongoing program to ensure that all Australians, regardless of age or personal situations, should enjoy a comfortable lifestyle. Those in some of the worst situations have become caught in a circular position whereby the harder they struggle to earn extra money to help themselves and their families the more tax they pay as they enter higher tax brackets. This is the origin of the term poverty trap, from which this Government strives, through the measures under consideration, to release Australians. Then again, it is those people who can find no work and who face the twin ills of loss of self-esteem and loss of economic stability who elicit my sympathy. It is most important for such people to realise that their loss of self-esteem is unjustified and that they are caught in an unhappy job situation which has grown over a number of years and which this Government's policies are striving to relieve. The big difference between the Hawke Government and the Fraser Government is that the Hawke Government quickly recognised the depressed state of the Australian economy which it inherited and acted to bring in new policies to assist the situation. Conversely, the Fraser Government denied that there was a shortage of jobs. To its everlasting shame, it blamed the victims by encouraging the dole bludger tag. This is part of the Hawke Government's plan for a better future for Australians. We have brought in a job creation program, the community employment program, to fill short term needs. Youth traineeships are now being developed in co-operation with State governments, business and unions, which promise new avenues of real job training and continuing employment for thousands of Australians. This, in conjunction with increases in income support for the unemployed, trainees and students, will certainly ease financial conditions for families struggling to exist. But what of the Opposition? Let us listen to what Mr John Valder, National President of the Liberal Party of Australia, said about welfare: If you are really going to make any big reduction in government spending I've got to say there is one area it's going to be done in-it would have to be done in-that's social welfare. This certainly is reflected in the statement made today by the Leader of the Opposition that he would cut benefits to the poorest groups in Australian society-the unemployed and the single parents. What did Mr Valder say about tax reform? He said: . . . to reverse the whole disease, if you like to call it, of fringe benefits which again has developed over a decade or more. I think Paul Keating has been very foolish and taken a massive risk in attempting to reverse that in one stroke. These are the words of the National President of the Liberal Party: But if one attempted to reverse that in a series of strokes over three or four years then I think it could be done. In fact, the Opposition would do it. He continued: And I've got to say I think that is a fair and just thing in this country. So what would the Liberal Party do? Mr Valder said: . . . let the Labor Party get on implementing the more necessary, but perhaps less popular parts of our policy. And let's hope they get them into place and promptly lose office. And I think that would be a very good scenario . . . There in a nutshell is the Liberal Party's plan for Australia-`let the Labor Party get on with implementing the more necessary, but perhaps less popular parts of our policy. And let's hope they get them into place and promptly lose office'. We in this House, Government and Opposition members alike, can be thankful, on behalf of Australia, that people capable of such veritable pearls of cynicism and negativism do not hold the reins of government in Australia. In comparison, the opinion on the tax package from Mr Julian Disney, President of the Australian Council of Social Service, is elevating. He said: We think it's a major step towards a greater fairness and greater prosperity in fact in the community. And I think that we, and other sectors in the community, should recognise the Government's courage and its perseverance in grappling with issues which many other people have left in the too hard basket. Thank you, Mr Disney, for that vote of support and for the sort of hope, the sorts of words and the sort of thinking that we need in Australia. As a member of the Hawke Government I believe it is appropriate and entirely compatible with Australian Labor Party policy that the tax reform package should recognise the contribution of those hard-working Australians who through no fault of their own have in the past had an unequal share of the national cake. Mr BURR(Lyons)(9.35) —The details and dangers that are contained in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) and cognate Bills have been clearly and concisely put by my colleagues at an earlier stage during this debate. However, I particularly commend the contribution of my colleague the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). The comments he made very clearly, concisely and succinctly spelt out where this country should be heading and the role that taxation policies should play in its development, and, in fact, in getting the country back on to the proper economic rails. In my view, this package of taxation Bills marks a very clear and new dimension in Australian politics. We are all conscious of those things that have led up to this package of Bills coming before the House. It is not some spur of the moment decision on behalf of the Government. Consideration of these tax measures has been going on for at least the past twelve months. We are conscious of those promises that were made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) during the last election campaign. We are also conscious that they led, in turn, to a Taxation Summit. It was particularly during that Taxation Summit and in subsequent events that the whole direction of Australian politics and the responsibility of elected governments changed very markedly. What happended at that Summit conference and as a consequence of it was that the Government-the Prime Minister and the Treasurer (Mr Keating)-effectively abdicated its responsibility as the elected government of this country in favour of those recommendations and, in fact, demands of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. That marks a very dangerous trend and a very dangerous shift in Australian politics. We are all conscious that prior to the Summit conference the Treasurer had made it very clear in public statements he had made that he considered that a consumer tax was essential to his whole strategy of tax reform. He made that very clear. In fact, he put his reputation on the line by saying that that feature of his package was fundamental to where he was going. Yet at the Tax Summit and in subsequent negotiations, the representatives of the Australian Council of Trade Unions-Mr Kelty and Mr Crean-said very clearly to Mr Keating that they would not accept a consumer tax. Subsequently it became clear that it was not going to be the tax measures that the Treasurer or the Prime Minister were insisting on that would prevail, but rather that those measures the Australian Council of Trade Unions was prepared to accept would be the legislation that finally appeared in this House. I warn all those people in Australia listening to this broadcast that this is a very dangerous shift in Australian politics. It marks a very dangerous shift in the balance of power in this country. We have under our democratic system a Government that is elected to make decisions on behalf of the people of Australia, but that Government has abdicated its responsibility in favour of people who have never faced the ballot box and have never gone before the people of Australia with a policy proposal. Yet it is the policy of those people who have not been judged by the Australian people that prevails in the form of legislation in this House. I believe that everybody in this country should be very conscious of the change that is taking place in this country and the role that is being played out by the Australian Council of Trade Unions and, in particular, by its most powerful spokesmen in Mr Crean and Mr Kelty. We should also be conscious of the fact that this Government-in particular the Prime Minister and the Treasurer-is not prepared to make any purposeful decisions unless it has the approval of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. I suggest to the people of Australia that we are not seeing decisions made by this Government on the basis of policies it has taken to the people which have been judged by the people of Australia through the normal democratic process. What we are now witnessing are decisions of government that are being made through a process of backroom deals that the ACTU is prepared to put its name to. The danger of that is that unless the Australian Council of Trade Unions is prepared to accept a decision or a new measure of the Government through that process of backroom deals, that measure will not be implemented by this Government. The people of Australia need to be conscious of what is happening in this process. It is not just a matter of bringing new taxation measures into this House, it is a very dangerous shift in the whole structure of power in Australia. We have heard the comments from the people on the other side of the chamber during this debate. We have also witnessed the demands that have been made by the Australian Council of Trade Unions and which have been accepted by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. It is very clear that the propositions put forward by the Government and the trade union movement are not based on common sense, nor are they based on what is in the best long term interests of this country. The propositions being put by honourable members opposite and by the Australian Council of Trade Unions are in fact based on their own personal prejudices. I believe that is totally unacceptable to this country. We also find that the propositions being put forward in relation to the rural industries and the business community of Australia have no basis in common sense, and my colleagues clearly spelt this out in their contributions. There are very sound and cogent reasons why some of these measures should not be legislated against, but they are based on prejudice. I remind the House that the honourable member for Aston (Mr Saunderson) and the honourable member for Jagajaga (Mr Staples), who are at present carrying on a conversation, are central to the prejudice that is coming forward from the Government benches. They base their decisions not on common sense but on pure prejudice because they believe that the people who are successful in this country should be legislated against. I remind the House of the effect that this legislation is having on the rural industries. One measure in particular that is to be brought in as a result of these packages will mean that the hard-hit rural people, the hard-hit farmers, will no longer be able to earn an income away from their farms beyond a limit of $15,000 a year. Mr Slipper —Why do they hate the country people? Mr BURR —I wonder myself why the Government hates country people. The plain fact is that many farmers in this country are finding it difficult not only to keep their farms viable but also to maintain sustenance for their families. Many farmers are finding it necessary to earn income outside their farms in some other enterprise. In some circumstances the farm enterprises are making substantial losses, and have been for some time. But if the farmers have the temerity to use their initiative and work hard to earn income from some other source that money is taxed, and at the same time they are making very heavy losses on their farming enterprises. I believe that very clearly spells out the predjudice that is being shown by this Government towards people on the land. This Government should be doing everything it possibly can to encourage our farmers because they are at the very source of earning foreign income for this country. Instead the Government is effectively killing the goose that is laying its golden eggs. As I have explained, it is not only that measure that will hit those people, but other measures, such as those which will affect water conservation and the capital gains tax, will very heavily hit the people in rural industries. I have explained the effects of all of these measures, such as taxes that are to be imposed on other benefits to the business community. These measures are not based on common sense; they are based purely on predjudice. This Government, or any government in Australia, should be doing everything it can to encourage our rural industries to be more prosperous and to trade more efficiently and effectively on the world markets so that they can earn foreign income which will in turn build up the wealth capacity which will then be available for distribution to other people living in this nation. To sum up, these measures mark a clear and distinct shift in the balance of power in Australia. The Government, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have effectively abdicated their responsibility to govern this country according to democratic principles. They have passed that responsibility to people who have never faced the ballot box. I refer to those who represent the ACTU, and in particular Mr Simon Crean and Mr Bill Kelty. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(9.45) —An enormous range of tax packages is now before the House as it discusses the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) and cognate Bills. I suppose it is true to say that few issues touch more people or excite stronger reactions than taxation. Taxation is never popular, but throughout the 1950s and the 1960s most people had a responsibility and complied with the tax laws that existed in this country. But during the 1970s there was a continuing erosion of the tax base. That erosion has occurred under all governments, but it has resulted in a lack of compliance with the tax base. Increasingly one has seen a number of blatant evasion techniques, avoidance measures, tax minimisation schemes and so on which have corroded and eroded the basis of our taxation system. Reform is necessary, and indeed crucial, if Australians are to believe that the tax system is fair. What the Government has done in this set of tax Bills is to re-establish the view that the system in this country is fair, simple and efficient. In the range of Bills before the House, one of the most important measures that has received very little comment-indeed, there has been no endorsement of it by the Opposition-is the Social Security (Poverty Traps Reduction) Bill, which relates to our program to remove poverty traps. I refer to those low income traps that occur because of the intertwining of social security payments with the taxation system which imposes excessive burdens on many pensioners and beneficiaries, particularly low income earners. This legislation includes a number of steps which will alleviate the problems caused by poverty traps. I will detail some of those measures. From 1 November next year the amount of private income a pensioner may earn before his or her pension is reduced under the income test will be increased by $10 a week for single pensioners and by $20 a week for pensioner couples. That will increase those amounts from $30 to $40 for single people and for couples from $50 to $70. As a result the payment received by up to 450,000 people who currently receive a part rate pension will increase by up to $5 a week. There is a second stage to the poverty traps legislation, because this Government will also be abolishing the separate income test on rent assistance. It is a test which at the moment leads to the withdrawal of 50c in rent assistance for the first and each subsequent dollar of income earned. The inclusion of rent assistance in the general income test under this legislation will reduce the marginal rate of income withdrawal faced by a massive 700,000 pensioners and beneficiaries throughout Australia who receive rent assistance. In most cases it will reduce that withdrawal rate from 50 per cent to zero. For the benefit of members of the Opposition, I would emphasise that a benefit of up to $15 a week will flow to some 300,000 pensioners with non-pension income who are forced to rent in the private rental market. There is a third, and probably even more important, aspect of this poverty traps program. In this legislation the Government will be providing further assistance to pensioners with children. At present the weekly income which a pensioner may earn without the reduction of pension is $6 a week for each child. Under this legislation, from 1 November next year that allowance will double-it will rise to $12 per child. That increase which will take effect as a result of this Government's program will be of enormous benefit and comfort to 750,000 children-the children of pensioners and beneficiaries who live around Australia on or below the poverty line. In many ways the debate tonight has been perhaps one of the most distasteful that I have listened to and participated in since I became a member of this House in March 1983. There has scarcely been a single honourable member opposite who has so much as acknowledged the benefits of the poverty traps legislation within the overall tax reform. It will benefit up to 750,000 children living in poverty in Australia. It will benefit up to 700,000 pensioners and beneficiaries. It is the most dramatic reform to take place in the social security and income tax system in Australia, and all we have heard from the Opposition tonight is a continuation of speech after speech bleating about the non-deductibility of free lunches. That is all they have talked about. They could not give a damn about 750,000 children living in poverty in Australia. They have not mentioned the poverty traps legislation. All we have heard is speaker after speaker talking about entertainment expenses and the loss of the so-called free lunch. What I want to point out to the 750,000 or million or so pensioners in Australia who will benefit from the poverty traps legislation is that if the policies of the Opposition were followed they would not get a red cent out of this legislation because the Opposition's priorities are to hand back $315m to people in free, taxpayer subsidised lunches. What we are doing with the poverty traps legislation tonight amounts to $215 million. We cannot do one without the other. Honourable members opposite ought to know that money does not grow on trees. There is a bit worse to come about the Opposition. Anyone who has read tonight's Herald newspaper and seen the headline `We'll cut the dole: Howard' would know that a coalition government is committed to cutting the dole and benefits to supporting parents. The Leader of the Oppositioin (Mr Howard) is reported as saying that a Liberal-National Party government would not shirk the opportunity to reduce both benefits. We had the pitiful sight of the Leader of the Opposition in here this afternoon trying to qualify that statement. Mr Beale —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. If the honourable member had been paying attention to the activities of this House he would know that the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon made a personal explanation on that matter. What the honourable member is saying is absolute rubbish. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! There is no point of order. I am sure the honourable member for Deakin has been here long enough to know that. Mr BRUMBY —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I mentioned that because the Bills we are debating tonight relate to social security and taxation. Many of us, of course, remember the Fraser years in which the payment for single adult unemployed people declined by 8 per cent. That Government left the junior rate at $36 a week. Perhaps the greatest impact of the Fraser years when the Leader of the Opposition was Treasurer was that additional payments for children-- Mr Howard —It would be a better dollar than you have now. Mr BRUMBY —The Leader of the Opposition is in the House now. When he was Treasurer that payment declined by 27.7 per cent. The Leader of the Opposition might think that people get the dole unfairly or that pensioners get the pension unfairly-he might not support the assets test-but what he did under the Fraser Government was reduce payments to children in need by 27.7 percent. That is his history. I have the honourable member's comments which he made this afternoon to the House. He did not do much of a job of qualifying his earlier statement. The honourable member is trying to wriggle out of the statement reported in the Herald that he intended to reduce dole payments and supporting parent benefit payments. The Herald reported the Leader of the Opposition as saying that supporting parent and unemployment benefits accounted for 60 or 70 per cent of the increase in the social welfare bill. In fact those two items equal 22 per cent of the social security budget. There has been an increase of 12 per cent for those two areas this year. Perhaps the reason those payments have increased by only 12 per cent under this Government is that we have managed by our economic policies to reduce the level of unemployment benefit payout in total. When we came to Government in 1983-84 we were paying out fortnightly 619,600 unemployment benefit cheques. By 1984-85, that figure was down to 581,000. It is now down to 540,000. Under our Government more than 80,000 people who were receiving the unemployment benefit are not receiving it now. That reflects a saving to this Government of well over a quarter of a million dollars. I point to the ludicrousness and stupidity of the statement that the Leader of the Opposition has made. The fact is that during the time of the Fraser and Howard economic strategy, in those seven dark years, they gave us a 430 per cent increase in the number of people receiving the unemployment benefit over the figure for the last full year of the Whitlam Government. There was not a 100 per cent increase-not a doubling or tripling of the figure-but a 430 per cent increase under the Fraser and Howard Government. The increase in payout-this is an astounding statistic-in unemployment benefit under the Liberals rose from $252m in 1975-76 to $2.912 billion in 1982-83. That is an increase of 1,057 per cent. When the Leader of the Opposition talks about cutting payments-he says he wants to reduce payments-we on this side of the House say that there is room for reform in regard to social security payments. We are doing that through our poverty traps reduction program. But the simplest way to find extra money in order to provide those programs is to get the economy moving again. One of the ways of doing that is to have a simple, fair and efficient tax system, which is what these tax reform Bills are all about. As I said, we have reduced by almost 100,000 the number of people in receipt of unemployment benefits. We have generated 460,000 new jobs during this Government's term of office. Mr Beale —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Under the agreement reached under the Standing Orders between the Leader of the House- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Deakin will resume his seat. That is the second point of order of a frivolous nature that he has raised. He will not raise any more. I call the honourable member for Bendigo. Mr Slipper —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I respectfully submit that the honourable member for Deakin should be permitted to state his point of order before he is ordered to sit down. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I did not call the honourable member for Fisher. The honourable member will resume his seat. Unless he is very careful, he will not be called. I note that he is listed to speak in this debate. Since he came into the chamber this evening, he has done nothing but interject. So far, I have not called it to his attention. Mr Slipper —I take a further-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Fisher will resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Bendigo. Mr Slipper —I take a further point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I resent the inference that I have not respected the rules of this House. I took a point of order and I am entitled to be heard under the rules of this House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Chair will not accept a lecture from the honourable member for Fisher. The Chair has been tolerant of the honourable member for Fisher. He will resume his seat and will not take any further frivolous points of order. I call the honourable member for Bendigo. Mr BRUMBY —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will conclude with this remark: I said earlier that this was a distasteful debate. Some pathetic points of order have been raised. But what makes this debate distasteful is that every Opposition member who has spoken has supported the deductibility of business expenses, the free lunch, at a cost to the taxpayer of $315m. None of them has supported the excellent poverty traps program that this legislation endorses. When one looks at tonight's Herald and the recent speech by the Leader of the Opposition, one sees that what the Liberals are really about is to cut in real terms the value of benefits to pensioners, beneficiaries and unemployed people in Australia. It is preposterous that they should support free lunches for people at the expense of the general taxpayer, and that they should oppose measures such as the assets test, which cuts off pensions paid to millionaires in Australia, yet in real terms they want to abolish this poverty traps program and reduce the real level of pensions and benefits. I think that that is not on. I support the legislation. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek your indulgence to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —I do, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition may proceed. Mr HOWARD —The honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby), who is well and truly in our gunsights now as being one of the victims of the high interest rates policy of the Hawke Government, said during his speech- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition claimed to have been misrepresented. I ask him to come to the point of the misrepresentation. Mr HOWARD —I will. The honourable member for Bendigo, in the course of his remarks, totally and completely misled the House in relation to some remarks that I made at the National Farmers Federation gathering yesterday. It was a very fine gathering of people who are interested in rural Australia. At that gathering, I made the very obvious point that those areas in which social welfare spending had risen over the last 15 years included unemployment and supporting parent benefits. During my remarks I said that some action ought to be taken in those areas, and I gave as an example something which I will repeat tonight. I do not resile from it. Mr Brumby —You have done this before. Mr HOWARD —I am going to do it again. Honourable members opposite must get used to this tactic. If they imagine that they can get away with this sort of nonsense, they have another think coming. During my speech I made the very obvious point that some changes to the Family Law Act might be required to prevent the ordinary taxpayer from carrying the financial liability that ought to be carried by people who walk out on their financial responsibilities. I think that around Australia there is fairly strong support for that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition knows that he should point out precisely to the House where he was misrepresented-- Mr HOWARD —I am. I was misrepresented in that-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I point out to the Leader of the Opposition that the Chair is addressing the House. Mr HOWARD —I am sorry. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member should point out to the House where he has been misrepresented and not elaborate on it to such an extent. Mr HOWARD —I was misrepresented in that I spoke about the Family Law Act and I was accused of advocating a reduction in the dole payments. I will repeat what I said after Question Time: I do not believe for a moment that somebody who genuinely has to live on the dole is being overpaid at the moment. The honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown), who is an honourable Government member, knows that what I am saying is correct. Somebody who really does have to rely on the dole is not being overpaid. I am not advocating that that person's entitlement ought to be cut, but what I was saying-I have no reluctance in saying it and without any reluctance at all I will go to Bendigo and say it-was that, frankly, it is about time that parliaments in this country had the courage to amend the Family Law Act to make sure that the general taxpayer no longer shouldered the burden of people who have walked out on their responsibilities. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek your indulgence to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr BRUMBY —I do, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr BRUMBY —The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has just made certain claims about statements that I made recently in the taxation debate in this House. I want to clarify the point for the benefit of honourable members in the House and those who might be listening to the debate. Mr McGauran —Where have you been misrepresented? Mr BRUMBY —I have been misrepresented-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has been given permission to make a personal explanation. Mr BRUMBY —I just wanted to say that there was no fabrication, exaggeration or misleading in any of my remarks, as claimed by the Leader of the Opposition. The front page of tonight's Herald says: A coalition government would cut the dole and benefits to supporting parents . . . Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Bendigo should clearly, concisely and as quickly as possible, without delaying the House, point out where he has been misrepresented by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr BRUMBY —Mr Deputy Speaker, I will finish my remarks very quickly. The Leader of the Opposition implied and insinuated that comments I made in the taxation debate were not accurate. All I am saying is that the remarks I made were about a report in the Herald tonight of comments which the Leader of the Opposition made in this House this afternoon to the effect that 60 to 70 per cent of the rise in the social welfare bill was due to unemployment and supporting parents going up. Those are the words of the Leader of the Opposition. All I have done is quote them to this House. The Leader of the Opposition has been trying to debate the point. He has made those statements. He should stand by them. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Bendigo has made his point. I call the honourable member for Fisher. Opposition members-Hear, hear! Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(10.05) —I thank my colleagues for their kind endorsement of my speech. It was very interesting tonight to hear the outgoing member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby). I have no doubt that his seat will be won by the National Party of Australia at the next election. The honourable member has bitten off more than he can chew by endeavouring to take on the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), a man who has the Australian Labor Party in a state of fear, a man who, along with the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair), is leading the conservative forces of this country back to government. The honourable member for Bendigo is in real trouble. He thinks he can come in here and make spurious and nonsensical statements in relation to matters in his speech. Mr McGauran —He is betraying his electorate. Mr SLIPPER —He is indeed betraying his electorate. The Leader of the Opposition today made a personal explanation and fully clarified a misleading story in one of the newspapers. It is quite wrong for any honourable member in this House to come forward and to doubt the word of the Leader of the Opposition. He is a trustworthy man and he is the man who will be Prime Minister of this country in a very short time. Mr Nehl —There is no doubt about that. Mr SLIPPER —There is no doubt about it. The honourable member for Bendigo made a stupid, ignorant attack upon the Leader of the Opposition, and the people of Australia who are listening tonight will condemn him for his foolhardiness in taking such a ridiculous point of view. Of course, he is desperate. He must stand up in this Parliament and try to defend the taxation policies of the Hawke socialist Government. Mr Beale —Even the Treasurer came in to listen. Mr SLIPPER —Yes, even the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has come in to listen to what I have to say tonight. It is a sad situation that when we should be looking at reduced taxes and positive government policies to get the country going again, we have more of the same old Labor Party approach. We know about the Australian Council of Trade Unions Tax Summit fraud. We know the way in which the Government of this country called together people from all over Australia. It brought them here to Canberra and put them into this House without the permission of this House in order to have a Summit. Mr White —Don't forget Midnight Bob. He scuttled across. Mr SLIPPER —That is correct. People came here at enormous cost to the Australian taxpayer, and what happened? All those people proceeded to kick the head of the outgoing Labor socialist Government of this country. We had option A, option B, option C and option D. All these options were floated by the Treasurer and his cronies, but we knew that there could be only one real option. That was the option that was sorted out in that sordid hotel deal by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). That was option ACTU, and the Premier of Queensland, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen-the greatest Premier in Australia's history-was the man who pointed out that option ACTU was the Government's new preferred option. We heard a lot about tax carts and we heard Government members saying how enthusiastic, pleased and honoured they were to jump into the Treasurer's tax cart. What a joke on them when the tax cart became a night cart. What a shock those enthusiastic members must have had when the night cart crossed the line, as the Treasurer said, minus one wheel, and undoubtedly tipped over. Mr Rocher —A few cans fell out. Mr SLIPPER —Indeed, and honourable members opposite would have had a fright. No doubt we on this side of the House have great compassion for the problems those Labor members in the Treasurer's tax cart must have had when they found how they had been sold short, sold down the drain, and how the people of Australia were being sold down the drain by the policies of this Government. The Treasurer's tax announcements were supposed to herald a brave new world for Australia. What a con it was, what a disappointment. Tax rates were supposed to come down substantially. The Government only scratched the surface there. It did not do very much. What did it do? It vented its spleen on the productive sector of Australia. It abolished negative gearing. What will happen to all the innovative industries we have in which people must invest over a considerable period before receiving a return? What about the avocado farms, the macadamia farms, the kiwi fruit and the lychee farms? Simply, this country will not see those innovations again. People on the other side of the House, on the left side of the House in more ways than one, on the Australian Labor Party side, hate rural people. The National Party represents all people. It does not represent just country people. Mr Howard —Hear, hear! Mr SLIPPER —I am pleased to see the honourable member for Bennelong nodding enthusiastically in agreement with my assertion that the National Party represents all people. The Government also hates city people. The abolition of negative gearing hurts people whether they are in the city or in the country. Mr Howard —They hate the urban poor. Mr SLIPPER —The Government hates the urban poor as the honourable member said, quite correctly. It also hates the rural poor. Mr Beale —And the home owners. Mr SLIPPER —It hates the home owners as the honourable member for Deakin says. In fact, it is simply not interested in people. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! I am sure that the honourable member for Fisher can manage quite well without all the assistance that is forthcoming from his colleagues. Mr SLIPPER —I am quite able to manage in this House and I appreciate the enthusiastic support from Opposition members who are concerned, as I am, about the policies of this Government. It has hurt urban people, it has hurt rural people and it has hurt home owners. In fact, it hates them, as the honourable member for Deakin said a moment ago. We remember the false promises by the Treasurer and the Prime Minister who said that the home owners of Australia could this year expect lower home interest rates. What an absolute joke! Mr Peter Fisher —What about capital gains? Mr SLIPPER —The capital gains tax is a matter which I will mention very shortly. Senator Walsh pointed out in the Senate that the assertions of the Treasurer and the Prime Minister were absolutely wrong. Mr Nehl —Lies! Mr SLIPPER —Lies, as the honourable member says. The people of Australia were conned by the Treasurer and the Prime Minister. Senator Walsh was honest enough to admit it. We also know about the assets test and the way in which our senior citizens have been hurt. Mr Nehl —Don't we ever! Mr SLIPPER —I am pleased to see that the honourable member for Cowper agrees with me. The Bills before the House tonight are a jumble of disparate taxation Bills. I will comment briefly on the way in which the Government has guillotined debate and tried to silence the elected representatives of the people. So many disastrous measures have been brought into this House by this Government in a short space of time that I believe we should protest-we are perfectly entitled to do so-that we have not been given adequate time to debate those measures which will lead Australia along the path of ruin. Mr Nehl —And disaster. Mr SLIPPER —There will be disaster, as the honourable member says. Honourable members can rest assured that this Government is leading the country along the same road as Argentina. Australia, under this Government, is the Argentina of the future. Our currency is virtually worthless. In the last six months it has devalued against most currencies in the world. This is an interesting reflection of the opinion of the international community of this Government's economic performance. We on this side of the House applaud the floating of the Australian dollar. It meant that our dollar was open to the scrutiny of the international community. The international community has seen that this Government has failed the country. It has failed to grasp the nettle and look at the real issues confronting Australia. The result is that our dollar has continued to fall. Admittedly, it has helped our export industries to a certain extent but it is a sad and sorry day when our currency must collapse before those industries can be helped. What about the enthusiastic way in which the Government has been encouraging the ACTU and extremist trade unions to make increasingly unreal demands for wages? The National and Liberal parties oppose those unreal demands. Australia is a nation living beyond its means. Australia must look at its situation and pull in its belt because, under this Labor Government, we are going down the chute. Mr Conquest —Drop the accord. Mr SLIPPER —We should scrap the accord, as the honourable member says. We are sick and tired and the people of Australia are sick and tired of the ALP's union appeasement approach. It is a disaster; it has always been a disaster; and while this Government is in office it will continue to be a disaster. Margaret Thatcher, one of the greatest Prime Ministers in the world's history, said: `We are not in politics to ignore people's worries; we are in politics to deal with them'. Why does the Government fail to take into consideration the worries of Australians? Why does it ignore the people of Australia? Mr Nehl —It doesn't care. Mr McGauran —It is callous. Mr SLIPPER —It does not care, as the honourable member for Cowper says; it is callous, as the honourable member for Gippsland says. It is simply unworthy to be the government of this country. No doubt the people of Australia will deal with the Government in no uncertain way at the next election. The people of Australia are sick of high taxes; they are sick of the approach of this Government. Let us look for a moment at the various taxation imposts which were threatened by the Hawke socialist Government. We heard about capital gains taxes. We heard about wealth taxes, we heard about gift taxes and we heard about death taxes. The National Party Government of Queensland was the first Government in Australia's history to abolish death tax and gift tax, on 1 January 1977, and I applaud that action. I applaud the way in which the people of Queensland have indicated in consecutive elections that they are simply not prepared to wear increased taxes. The ALP manages to float lots of ideas on tax. It floats them, and the people of Australia tremble and become worried by its approach. Then, of course, after a little bit of discussion, a revised, slightly watered down package emerges. The ALP hopes that the people will be fooled by that, but they will not be fooled, as the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) accurately pointed out. The ALP tries to threaten us with the worst and then it offers us something that is bad, but not quite so bad. It will not fool the people of Australia because the people of Australia are not fools. A number of honourable members today have talked about restaurants. It is important that we have employment in all sectors of the community. I do not believe that we should protect anyone who does not pay the appropriate rate of tax. But businesses incur costs in earning assessable income, and the Income Tax Assessment Act quite rightly provides for what is assessable and what is deductible. It is a tragedy that the Treasurer, who admitted that many of the entertainment expenses were quite genuinely incurred in earning assessable income, says that these expenses should be ignored for the purpose of deductibility. Honourable members may simply write this off as yet another socialist attack on the small business people who run restaurants. But the ALP will be hoist with its own petard over this because it will cause the loss of tens of thousands of jobs in restaurants-not five hundred jobs, not a thousand jobs, but tens of thousands of jobs. I wonder what members of the Government will say to young people who have lost their restaurant jobs when they come forward to get the dole. In my own electorate there is a restaurant which used to employ 11 people. It is now down to four people. It is losing money. I hope it can continue to operate, but if it cannot the ALP Government will have only itself to blame. We know the vicious way in which the Government has attacked the motor vehicle industry. Thousands of people in this country are employed in the motor vehicle industry, but the ALP Government is not interested in it; it is not interested in employment; it is not interested in ordinary people. It is causing those people to be thrown out of their jobs. I hope that the people of Australia who are listening to this parliamentary broadcast tonight will realise this and will condemn the Hawke socialist Government for its absolutely disgusting approach to this taxation package. The fringe benefits situation is another matter for which the ALP Government can be absolutely condemned. The Government must realise that the taxpayer does not want to be slugged constantly by the ALP. Ronald Reagan, the greatest President of the United States of America even has said: The taxpayer is someone who works for the federal government but does not have to take a civil service examination. The approach of this Government seems to be that the taxpayer is someone who should work for the Federal Government and not receive anything for his or her hard work. Water conservation is another area which has been ignored by this Government. This Government is victimising rural industry in this area. Mr Nehl —They hate the farmers. Mr SLIPPER —As the honourable member for Cowper pointed out, they hate the farmers. The Government has reduced the deductability of water conservation expenses to the point where there is now only provision for write-off over five years in lieu of the one year allowed previously. Mr Blunt —What about the Murray Valley? Mr SLIPPER —The honourable member for Richmond asks about the Murray Valley. I will tell him about the Murray Valley. The people of that area will vote against the Labor Government at the next election because they will not support the Government's neglect of salinity problems. The honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher), who is a very effective member-his majority increases election after election-asked me earlier about capital gains taxes. I will refer to what the Prime Minister said in his election policy speech-that great fraud-on 16 February 1983 at the Sydney Opera House. He 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. The Prime Minister of this country, who was so desperate for the fruits of office, so desperate to crawl into the Lodge, said: There will be no new capital gains tax. Mr Nehl —You can't trust him. Mr SLIPPER —One cannot trust him. The people of Australia know that this Prime Minister, this Treasurer and this front bench of the ALP are simply untrustworthy. What a tragedy that we have a Ministry which cannot be trusted. It is sad that Australia has come through 84 years of federation to find such a government. We have a government which cannot be trusted. We have a Prime Minister who is prepared to promise the people of Australia the world to crawl into office. Mr Blunt —What did he do to Bill Hayden? Mr SLIPPER —Everyone knows what he did to Bill Hayden. Bill Hayden is a conscientious and hard-working Labor Minister. The ALP has come forward, after promising a bold new world in the area of taxation, with a mish-mash of Bills. In fact, we have six Bills before us. Those Bills contain hundreds of pages. We have a very short time for debate on those Bills. A large number of honourable members on this side of the House have not been permitted to talk. The Government wants to muzzle this Parliament. Look at the size of the speakers list. Many of the people on the list have been prevented from talking. On our side of the House there is the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher), the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher), the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer), the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), the honourable member for Hinkler (Mr Conquest) and the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), who constantly makes such a tremendous contribution to debate in this House. Mr Lamb —I raise a point of order. Is it correct for the honourable member to refer to the honourable member for Denison, a self-proclaimed future Prime Minister, as- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! There is no substance in the point of order. I will have to regard that as a frivolous point of order. Dr Watson —We have them on the run. Mr SLIPPER —As the honourable member for Forde said, we on this side of the House have the ALP on the run. That was a spurious point of order. I humbly apologise to the honourable member for Denison, a man whom I greatly admire, if I failed to address him by his correct title. We should remember that Parliament is an institution which we have inherited from Westminster. We on this side of the House respect the traditions of Parliament. We think it is shameful; we think it is disgusting; we think that the ALP will be condemned for the way in which it is destroying the institution. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. I call the Treasurer. Mr Hicks —Mr Deputy Speaker, I was on my feet when you called the Treasurer. I would like to move an extension of time for the honourable member for Fisher. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —You have not got the call. You may have been on your feet but I did not see you. I called the Treasurer. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(10.26) —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Nehl —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member not to take frivolous points of order. Mr Nehl —This is the first point of order I have taken in this House. I have been a member for nearly a year. It is not my intention to take a frivolous point of order at any time. The point of order I take is that, while you may not have seen the honourable member for Riverina- Darling; he was on his feet before the Treasurer. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I accept the explanation of the honourable member for Cowper about my not having seen the honourable member for Riverina-Darling on his feet, but I did call the Treasurer. Mr Rocher —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to speak to the point of order, and naturally I will accept your ruling on this. I was listening carefully and I did not hear you call the Treasurer before my colleague the honourable member for Riverina-Darling was on his feet. I wonder whether either I misheard or the noise caused me not to hear what you said. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —What did you mishear? Mr Rocher —Mr Deputy Speaker, I was listening attentively when the honourable member for Riverina-Darling rose to his feet. I did not hear you call the Treasurer at that stage. You then recognised the honourable member. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I understand the honourable member for Curtin. I called the Treasurer before it was brought to my notice that the honourable member for Riverina- Darling had risen to his feet. I thought that he was just supporting the honourable member for Fisher. Mr KEATING —On 19 September last- Mr Hicks —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I am seeking your indulgence. Would it be permissible for me to move a motion that so much of the Standing Orders be set aside as would allow the honourable member for Fisher to speak? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —At the moment the Treasurer has the call. After he has finished his speech you may move a motion to that effect. Mr KEATING —On 19 September last, on behalf of the Government, I introduced the most substantial reforms to the Australian taxation system in its history. After years of neglect of the taxation system by the coalition parties in this country and after years of watching the degradation of the system, the lack of taxpayer compliance, the decline in respect of the system, at the last election the Government indicated that it would review the tax system, reform it and introduce measures to change it. Tonight we are discussing some of these measures which have been introduced in legislation. The tax legislation we have debated today in the Parliament represents an important part of that package. It includes measures to ameliorate poverty traps, group loss provisions for mining and petroleum companies, measures to deny deductions for entertainment expenses, new substantiation rules for employment-related expense claims, new provisions for assisting the film industry, the taxing of certain public unit trusts as companies and changes to write-off provisions for soil and water conservation. I have listened with some interest to the debate, but one has to conclude that Opposition members have spent the day saying very little about this package. In fact, this is one of the poorest debates I have heard on a major tax reform statement in this Parliament. The speech of the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) is indicative of the Opposition's paucity of talent, interest and understanding on the whole question of tax reform. Opposition members have said even less about an alternative tax reform package, because the Opposition has never been interested in tax reform. In fact, in its period of office we watched the blatant, contrived, criminal avoidance schemes proliferate throughout the 1970s, to be dealt with only under the weight of public opinion after the publication of the McCabe-Lafranchi and Costigan reports. Never has the coalition ever attempted to deal with the more subtle, more rutted-in tax shelters in the system that have been exploited and used by taxpayers to minimise their tax. The main focus of the remarks of the members of the Opposition has been the mindless parroting of the claims made by vested interests against one or other aspects of the tax package. In particular, they have criticised the decision of the Government to disallow entertainment expenses. In doing so, the Opposition has acknowledged that significant abuses of the entertainment claims have been allowed under the current Income Tax Assessment Act, but having acknowledged that these abuses are substantial, they have merely proposed a useless legislative response which leaves the Commissioner of Taxation almost totally powerless to do anything about those abuses. I will say more about the Opposition's proposal in the Committee stage. Some Opposition members have simply acted as spokespeople for some of the hysterical vested interests affected by this measure. They have criticised the Australian Taxation Office estimates of the impact and revenue yield of the measures and have quoted instead the claims of the entertainment industry and one or two studies, including the BIS-Shrapnel Pty Ltd study. These studies are all based on the totally false premise that the entertainment tax represents an increase in total tax revenue. They have totally failed to recognise that the Government is providing the largest tax cut in Australian history in the form of the $4.5 billion package of rate reductions. Claims of job losses of 18,000 persons in the entertainment industry rely on totally ignoring the integrated nature of the package. They are also totally lacking in any substantive evidence. In fact, the information so far available to the Government from the Commonwealth Employment Service shows that there has been a significant increase in job vacancies in hotels, restaurants and clubs since the package was announced. Indeed, I am informed that while no doubt there are seasonal factors to take into account, it is clear that nationwide the number of skilled vacancies in the restaurant industry, particularly for chefs and cooks, has increased significantly since the statement was announced on 19 September. The Commonwealth Employment Service advises that in all States and Territories, apart from Victoria and to a lesser extent the Australian Capital Territory, there is no evidence of a downturn in CES business levels in the hotel and restaurant industries. No evidence of mass retrenchments or large numbers of job seekers registering with the CES has been identified and there are still difficulties in satisfying employer requirements for skilled staff in many occupations in the industry. The claim was made that 1,500 retrenchments have occurred in Queensland. I indicate that that is simply part of the norm and does not seek to measure the change in the pattern of retrenchments from the industry, given the transient nature of employment in the industry. The Brisbane CES hospitality employment service is aware of only two retrenchments to date which appear to have been attributable to the 19 September statement. The Commonwealth Employment Service further advises that employers are still lodging vacancies at an unprecedented level. Requests for overseas recruitment are still being received and specialist CES hospitality services are continuing to experience difficulties in filling vacancies for skilled workers in the industry. In New South Wales, a survey of 24 CES offices revealed no identifiable increase in registrations of unemployment and only three cases of retrenchments were identified in the industry. Recorded vacancies increased by 140 per cent between October 1984 and October 1985. The CES employment office managers in South Australia report that, while employers have certainly voiced pessimism, this has not been translated into an adverse effect on CES business levels. Subdivision 92 vacancies in that State increased by over 12 per cent between October 1984 and October 1985. Of course, that is a clear indication on the part of the Commonwealth Employment Service of the level of registrations of vacancies in the restaurant industry. It is in marked contrast to the hysteria and stupidity with which some elements of the industry have argued their case-and those remarks have been taken up and parroted by members of the Liberal Party and the National Party. (Quorum formed) Before the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) sought to disrupt the debate by calling a quorum, I was indicating that we had the absurd proposition being put by members of the Liberal Party that in legislating against the abuse of entertainment expenses, the abuse of restaurant meals, the abuse of the tax system by the use of fringe benefits and credit cards for the provision of meals, we were legislating against people who are successful. In other words, Opposition members believe that we should not legislate against people who are ripping off the tax system; we should not legislate against people who want to walk their way around their tax obligations while other people have to pay their taxes for the pleasure of having those other people dine in restaurants at lunch and dinner at the expense of ordinary taxpayers. The claim is that the measures are based on prejudice. If making people pay their fair share of tax is prejudice, of course that is a fair enough description; but the Government was not prepared to allow that state of affairs to continue any longer. The hysteria has been unbelievable. In the first two weeks after the tax statement was introduced, the only question I was asked on tax reform by the once great Liberal Party was about restaurant meals-to protect the free lunches which have been built into the system, which have been there for years, and which the Opposition was prepared to protect forever. We simply reject the fact that this is an inappropriate measure. It was long overdue. As fringe benfit packages were being wound up, credit cards were being offered to more and more employees and they were being abused simply by entertainment. This was being borne by some taxpayers, thus requiring other taxpayers to pay a higher rate of tax so that some other people could eat and dine in the style to which they had become accustomed. There has also been criticism in the debate of the fact that the disallowance of entertainment expenses takes eight pages of complex law. Those critics, in fact, are opposed to the whole idea of removing the business lunch subsidy by ordinary workers who get no such benefit. The length and complexity is caused by two factors: One factor is the Government striving to see that the measure is as fair as possible. For example, so that meals while on business travel continue to be deductible, allowance had to be made to permit deductions for ordinary business expenses of those operating entertainment related businesses. The other element, unfortunately, was brought about by the aggressive search for ways to take advantage of that reasonable approach by those who were unwilling to accept loss of the tax rorts they had enjoyed for too long. It has been necessary to frustrate their aims by various safeguards. One has only to read the Press reports of entrepreneurial activities of these kinds-that is people trying to get around this measure-to see that such steps must be taken in the Bill. Also, some Opposition members-the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) and the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair)-criticised the replacement of the immediate deduction for capital expenditure on water conservation with a 20 per cent annum write off. It was even suggested that this would be disastrous for the standard of water supply in South Australia. It was as preposterous as that. This measure merely restores this deduction to the rate applying to most business capital expenditures and in a mild way reduces tax sheltering. The Government's continued concern for water conservation is evidenced by the increase of $4.6m in funding under the Federal water resources assistance program in 1985-86. Our even-handedness in these matters is also demonstrated by the extension to all expenditures on prevention of land degradation, the concession provided for the control of soil erosion. There were 20 speakers from the Opposition in the debate, which is a substantial number of speakers to put the views of their parties. After listening for some time to the debate, one has to conclude that they have no framework whatsoever for seeking to oppose these tax measures and certainly no framework to offer an alternative tax reform package. In fact, right through the 1970s the history of taxation policy has been one of simply disrespect and disrepute for a system which was falling apart, which lost taxpayer compliance and respect, where people were able to indulge themselves in criminal avoidance schemes of the bottom of the harbour variety and where in terms of the general running of the tax system there was never any attempt on the part of the coalition parties to clean it up, to make it fairer and to give Australians lower rates of marginal tax, which this measure will do. It will dramatically change tax rates. Every dollar raised from the proceeds of these changes and more will be handed back to taxpayers in lower marginal rates of tax. We are giving the taxpayers of Australia the choice between a party which has defended and, indeed, entrenched all the rorts and ramps in the tax system, and the Labor Party which has removed these rorts and ramps from the system, made the tax system fairer and handed all of the proceeds back to the taxpayers of Australia at a cost to the Government-certainly no gain to the Government-in lower marginal rates of tax on all taxpayers. We have produced a fairer system, one which will lead to efficiency, which will encourage people to earn more, to invest more and one which will reward incentive rather than the punitive rates of tax which applied under Liberal governments in years gone by. We on this side of the House, after a long national debate on taxation, have come up with the most substantial and significant reform of the tax system in our living memory. It is a reform which will make this country a much fairer place to live in because taxation is an important part of the economic livelihood of the country. It is a burden the public has to bear, and the lighter the burden the better, and the fairer the burden the better. These measures which were introduced into the Parliament and which are being debated at the moment are part of that package and therefore we commend them to the House. I move: That the question be now put. Question put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 47 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 23 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R. Beazley. K. C. Jakobsen, C. A. Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Keating, P. J. Blewett, N. Kelly, R. J. Bowen, Lionel Kent, L. Brown, John Keogh, L. J. Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V. Campbell, G. Lee, M. Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J. Child, J. McHugh, J. Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J. Cohen, B. Martin, S. P. Cross, M. D. Mayer, H. Cunningham, B. (Teller) Mildren, J. B. Darling, E. E. Milton, P. Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G, Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G. Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T. Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J. Fatin, W. F, Scholes, G. G. D. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Free, R. V. Simmons, D. W. Gear, G. Snow, J. H. Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R. Grace, E. L. Theophanous, A. C. Griffiths, A. G. Tickner, R. E. Hand, G. L. Uren, T. Hayden, W. G. West, S. J. Holding, A. C. Willis, R. Hollis, C. Wright, K. W. Howe, B. L. Young, M. J. Beale, J. H. Lloyd, B. Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S. Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J. Brown, N. A. McVeigh, D. T. Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G. Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C. Cameron, Donald Nehl, G. B. Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Peacock, A. S. Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R. Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K. Cowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C. Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M. Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. Drummond, P. H. Shipton, R. F. Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC. Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N. Fischer, Tim. Smith, W. Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M. Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W. Halverson, R. G. Watson, DavidHawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D. Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Hodgman, W. M. Humphreys, B.C. Aldred, K. J. Price, L. R. S. Coleman, W. P. Bilney, G. N. Everingham, P. A. E. Punch, G. F. Carlton, J. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Keating) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 15 November, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 5-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 6 (Meals provided to clients, &., in in-house dining facilities). Mr WHITE(McPherson)(10.55) —Clause 6 of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) complements the operation of proposed new section 51AE. It refers to canteens and in-house meals. It refers to canteens in which people are fed who are not necessarily employees of the company concerned. Of course, the problem is that if an employer who wants deductibility for its employees has people eating in the canteen who are not its employees something like $30 per person per meal will have to be added to the assessable income of that employer. Apart from the general nonsense of this Bill, well documented by speakers on our side in the course of this debate, it is stupid and excessive that the Government should propose to charge an employer some $30 per person per meal if someone who is not an employee of that company should sneak into the canteen and have a meal. I ask the Government how it will police that. Will someone be put at the door of the canteen to ensure that everyone walking through the door is employed by that company? We do not wish to dwell on this clause, but we will be speaking at some length on the operation of proposed new section 51AE. Suffice it to say at this stage that we oppose clause 6 because it is linked very closely to clause 9, which is yet to be discussed. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(10.57) —I would like to take the opportunity in addressing clause 6, which deals with meals provided to clients in in-house dining facilities, to raise it in the context of its wider operation with relation to the proposed new sections 51AE and beyond to be inserted through clause 9. They constitute the crux of the Government's proposals in relation to the elimination of deductions for entertainment expenses. The Government argues that its propositions in relation to taxation reform are part of a total package. The Government implies that for it to be a package the legislation must be considered as a unity which cannot be changed or improved. Of course, I think it is obvious to every member that a package does not connote that. A package is merely a bundle of objects; it is anything that is packed into a parcel. Clearly, by definition, a package is still a package with some part of it removed. There is nothing magic about the way in which the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has grouped these taxation changes. Each change is entitled to be considered on its merits. It seems to me that the only obligation, if one advocates the addition or deletion of one or more of the Treasurer's changes or alterations to the taxation system, is to advise where any reduced income will be made up. The Opposition has made it clear at all times that it does not accept that further savings in Government expenditure are impossible. In fact, the Opposition has argued that the National Taxation Summit should have been an expenditure summit and not just a discussion of Government revenue. It will be remembered that the Government has always argued that its proposals should be revenue neutral. In any event, the Government's proposals are clearly not revenue neutral, as the benefits which the Government proposes are not to be met fully by additional tax collections imposed directly but are to be met also by the movement of some taxpayers into higher taxation scales. Inflation will be the weapon of the Government to exact from taxpayers additional revenue. The Opposition also has advised that it will look at a broadening of the tax base by increasing taxes to pay not only for any tax forgone by its alterations to the Goverment's proposals, but also for its own taxation reforms such as those outlined at the last election. Having said that, it seems to me that one can reasonably look at the detail of the Government's proposals and suggest reasonable variations. The Opposition has done that by opposing those sections of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) which deal primarily with business deductions for entertainment while supporting other aspects of the Bill which deal with matters such as car expenses incurred by an employee, travel expenses when incurred by a spouse, and so on. It is not the totality of the Government's package but rather those matters which the statement suggested would be of more immediate impact. This legislation is exceedingly long. In the entertainment area, traditionally section 51 (1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act has allowed a deduction for expenses generally incurred in earning assessable income. It provides that expenses properly incurred in running a business may be deductible. In this Bill we have a definition of `agreement', `business', `eligible dining facilities', `eligible relatives', `eligible seminars', `employees', `exempt training seminars', `industrial instruments', `in-house dining facilities', `in-house recreational facilities', `participants', `premises', `recreation', `recreational facilities' and `seminars'. Then there is a series of situations which specifically address the allowances which will be allowed and others which will not. These arrangements are quite complex. They involve inconsistencies and in my view quite unexpected results will occur because of that complexity. The other point I want to make about the complexity of these proposals is the prospect of fairness and equity to taxpayers. Already there are substantial delays and very large sums of money involved in disputed tax cases before the courts and taxation boards of review. For every disputed case many years may elapse before resolution. While that happens, the revenue benefits from tax that may at some future date be required to be repaid with interest to the taxpayer. This introduces new uncertainty into the Government's revenue equation, another claim or debt to be possibly repaid in future years. The operative section, which is section 51AE (4), is one of which honourable members ought to be aware. It refers to entertainment in particular. But entertainment is not one of those matters that is addressed by this Bill in its definitions clause. A large number of exclusions for certain types of seminars, in-house canteens, and the like are provided for and in each case expenses are now to be claimed as deductible-we see this particularly in clause 6, the clause that I am addressing. We will see case by case claims and examinations by the Commissioner of Taxation as a result of those changes, and as a result we will have a time-consuming and expensive process. Yet all that would have been needed-and the Government would have us believe that it is not possible-would be for the present law to be enforced. If the present law is properly addressed and claims are made only for proper expenses incurred in endeavouring to earn income, we would have a far more preferable situation, and that is what the Opposition proposes. All of the so-called rants, rorts and rip-offs of which the Treasurer and Government members seem to be aware could easily have been cured by substantiation-that is, the simple exercise of auditing some tax returns to check the entertainment expenditure claimed, who was present and what business was conducted. I am not in the business of seeing higher income earners taking out their families and friends for expensive meals at the expense of their fellow taxpayers. Substantiation could have cured this to the extent that it is a problem. Some honourable members, such as the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis), have argued that poor workers do not receive benefits in the form of subsidies for entertainment, food and drink and by way of a tax deduction. Nothing could be further from the truth. This should be seen in the context of the subsidies which canteens attract and which will still operate under the benefit of a tax shelter under this legislation which we are pursuing this evening. I support the Opposition's amendment in regard to the relevant clause because it makes it clear that the existing law is to be properly enforced, but it does not go so far as to introduce significant disadvantages to business, enterprise and initiative, as is the case with the Government's proposals. To harm business is not just to harm restaurants but to harm exporters, international traders, and people who are competing within Australia with importers, all of whom will be disadvantaged in their competitive market. Surely international competition is hard enough without introducing additional hurdles for those doing business from or in Australia. There is no doubt there may have been some exaggeration of some of the impacts that this measure will have on restaurants and the like. Additionally, there will be great individual variations. Equally, the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly), the honourable member for Throsby and the Treasurer-who, in his closing speech, sought to rebut these arguments by referring to exaggerated reports that the Commonwealth Employment Service is yet to notice significant additional unemployment effects-ignore certain cogent arguments. Many restaurants will not know the real impact of the proposals until the new year, after the peak Christmas period. Employment impacts can be gauged from the surveys, which suggest at least one employee per restaurant has now been retrenched. In 266 restaurants in Sydney the takings since September have dropped by 29.53 per cent; 105 casual and 118 permanent employees have been dismissed. I have received this advice from one very successful restaurant in my electorate: As a medium sized restaurant operating in the suburbs, we have attracted, in the past, a wide ranging clientele for business lunches. It is absurd to argue that business is not legitimately stimulated and increased by providing entertainment at the lunch table. Already my business is down 30%. Five casual employees have been retrenched, two full-time employees including one professional chef, have been dismissed. The dismissal of the chef means that under the existing laws, we will not be able to take on an apprentice chef next year. One final point I should make is that if the predictions of the restaurant and catering industry are in part correct, savings to revenue from this proposal will be offset by substantially increased welfare payments and reductions in revenue all around. I hope that the evidence of honourable members who have participated in this debate has been researched and is correct, unlike that of one of my colleagues in an adjoining electorate, who claimed in the local Press that after making contact with 20 restaurants none had had a fall in business. Mr Peter Fisher —Who was that? Mr RUDDOCK —I do not wish to embarrass the honourable member by naming him, because of what I am about to say, but I make it clear that he is a Labor member. My understanding, on checking with 15 restaurants in the honourable member's electorate, is that one restaurant refused to say whether it had been contacted and 14 had not. It is far too easy to say that the impact of these proposals will not be significant. If that were the case, why would the restaurant and catering industries be so concerned to bring their problems to public notice? Why would they want to bring their plight to public notice if these proposals were not to have an impact? I simply reiterate that the Opposition does not object to the bulk of the Treasurer's changes, but with regard to those areas where there is disagreement, the Opposition proposes to move amendments. If these amendments are not carried, we will have no other course open to us but to oppose the Bill as a whole. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(11.06) —If further evidence were needed of the chasm between the stated objectives of the Hawke Government and the results it obtains by its policies and legislative actions, one need look no further than the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) in general and clause 6 in particular. There is a yawning gap between the claimed commitment to simplify and make efficient tax laws and the effects of this clause now under consideration by the Committee. This Bill in general and clause 6 in particular will add considerably to the complexion and complexity of taxation law. The truth is that this legislation and this clause are enormously complex. That fact belies the often-stated objective of this Government to simplify income tax laws. This clause sets out to deny income tax deductions for entertainment expenses which were hitherto claimable. The cost of entertainment incurred in pursuit of assessable income is and should remain an allowable deduction for tax purposes, just as advertising and some promotion costs remain allowable. I put it to the Committee that there is little difference between the concept of the business lunch and advertising. Both are bought or purchased to further the business and the business interests of the initiating enterprise or individual. Properly overseen by the Commissioner of Taxation, existing section 51 (1) is more than adequate to ensure that possible abuse is kept to negligible levels. The Act as it is presently written allows deductions for entertainment to the extent to which an expense was incurred for the necessary purpose of carrying on a business or earning assessable income. That is already prescribed under existing section 51 (1). Therefore, the Act as it is now written does not allow deductions for the cost of private or social entertainment, despite the rhetoric of honourable members opposite. By definition, expenses not of a business nature or incurred in the course of earning assessable income will not now be allowed. It necessarily follows that this assault is directed at expenses which are incurred for the purpose of carrying on business or in pursuit of assessable income. Perhaps this measure is part of the vengeance to be wreaked on the private sector by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) for its opposition to his ill-fated option C. Even given the series of tax changes announced, the exalted status of the so-called tax reform does not disguise this further assault on the wealth-creating sector. Let there be no doubt that this Government is not on about reform of the tax system. That went out the window with the Australian Council of Trade Unions' dismissal of option C. We are talking about piecemeal changes to the system and measures in these Bills-clause 6 of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) in particular-are but parcels which the Treasurer would have us believe are part of a package. One does not get much of a package by bundling a number of unrelated and incoherent parcels together and calling them a tax package. Part of the so-called package, and included in clause 6, is the assault on entertainment expenses which I have just mentioned. The Treasurer also has it in mind as part of this package to tax gold, and today he announced that he had set up a committee, the terms of reference of which were: To examine the impact of the White Paper proposal on the gold mining industry. The interesting thing about that is that on 19 September the Treasurer told the Parliament that an independent inquiry had already been established. It seems now that it had not and that it is only this week that the inquiry has been set up and the committee given its terms of reference. Why is there a discrepancy between these dates? Could it be that this courageous, gutsy Government, so prepared-if one believes its adherents-to take the tough decisions, does not want the committee's findings until after the Western Australian State election? In this latest manoeuvre can be found shades of this same Government's deferment of land rights legislation until after the same Western Australian election. The decision to disallow expenses which were hitherto properly deemed to be part and parcel of earnings assessable income does not deserve our support. This clause goes much further than the announced intention of the Treasurer on 19 September. It is in part retrospective in its application. By being restrospective to that extent it falls foul of a commitment by the coalition parties to oppose retrospectivity of all kinds in tax law. This anti-entertainment measure also requires employers to become unpaid policemen and to accept responsibility for what their employees may or may not include in their tax returns. That is plainly absurd. Those businesses with the size and resources to pay for in-house dining facilities will claim the costs and will be allowed them. Those who are self-employed will not enjoy the same treatment. My colleague the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown), mentioned big business. This is just another example of the preferential treatment that this Government gives to big business and big unions. That sort of preferential treatment is further evidenced by the Bill which positively discriminates against those who are not members of big unions and paid under awards which specify meal allowances. Meal allowances stipulated under awards are not to become taxable, whereas meals taken by the self-employed worker who has to feed himself in identical circumstances will not enjoy this benefit. Mr Peter Fisher —They get opera tickets, too. Mr ROCHER —Yes, they get opera tickets, tickets to the footy finals and who knows what. Most of all, this clause is lengthy, complex and very difficult to understand and interpret. There is no definition of entertainment in the Bill, nor is there any real definition of how one determines the cost of it. Sole traders, including the self-employed, are absolutely discriminated against. The president of the Confederation of Australian Industry got it right in his reported comments when he said of the anti-entertainment Bill: . . . it is a most complex, obtuse piece of legislation. He went on to say it was also: . . . an unwarranted imposition on genuine business operations. This is just further evidence of how unions and union members have positive discrimination in their favour and the rest of us have to go begging. If any important measures arise which are likely to touch on incomes or economic policy, the ACTU must be first consulted. If the Hawke Government needs a second opinion, it consults the ACTU. Then, when it is ready to make up its mind, it asks the ACTU what its decision is. This is just another example of that stupid state of affairs that we in this country will have to suffer under the Hawke Government. I trust that this measure will be defeated in the Senate, as it so richly deserves. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(11.15) —It is scandalous that a matter of such importance to this nation and its economy-a major alleged reform of the taxation laws-is being debated at this hour of the night and that the debate has been guillotined. The second reading debate was slashed and a large number of members who had waited and waited to speak were denied the opportunity. At a quarter past 11 at night we are dealing with the first of a series of clauses which are the linchpin of this fraudulent-I emphasise that word-tax package. It must be said that the Hawke-Keating tax package is a fraud. In my view it should be opposed lock, stock and barrel. The package must be viewed as a whole. It is not divisible although it is being presented in separate Bills, some of which we will not see for another six months. What the private enterprise sector is meant to do in that time in its decision making heaven alone knows. Although the Government has presented separate Bills, I have to say quite bluntly that the poison in the tax package far outweights the few sugar coated pills. They are the sweeteners and only suckers would fall for a few sweeteners in such a poisonous and dangerous tax package. Two fundamental principles of the income tax law are at stake. The first comes up in clause 6, which I am now addressing. The inviolate principle that expenditure incurred in earning income is tax deductible will go out the door with the elimination of entertainment allowances. Quite bluntly, section 51 of the Income Tax Assessment Act is being raped. Secondly, the fringe benefits tax proposals transfer the obligation from the employees to the employers. As Mr John Spalvins has pointed out, thousands of decent Australians will now lose their jobs as the direct result of this proposal alone. It is bad enough that the Hawke-Keating tax package will wipe out one-quarter of the motor industry, one-third of the tourism industry and half the restaurants in Australia but it is even worse that the Hawke socialist Government will get its foot in the door to ravage further the fundamental principle of section 51, which is sacronsanct in every free enterprise democracy in the world. I take up the remarks of my colleague the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock). How will Australian businessmen feel when they are competing for contracts in Japan, for example, against countries which do not bring in iniquitous amendments to the taxation laws as they have been brought in in this country in the Hawke-Keating tax package? The Government will make Australian business and Australian exporters the poor relations in the world trade market. The amendments will be an embarrassment. Worse still, they will stifle the incentive, the initiative and the opportunity to develop business. This Government says that it will not trust the businessmen and business women of Australia on how much they will spend on their meals. What an outrageous insult to free enterprise. How incredible it is that so many people in the business sector have been sucked in by this snake-like Government-this combination of bandicoot and ferret which has ravaged the economy of this great nation of ours. The package is, at worst, a prescription for economic disaster to private enterprise in Australia and, at best, a fiscal presentation of the Mad Hatter's tea party. I invite any member of the legal or accountancy professions to look at what has been drafted in clause 6 which we are debating. Mr Slipper —It is a mess. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member is quite correct; it is an absolute mess. One will need to have one's personal travelling Queen's Counsel to explain what it means. The honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher), who spoke a moment ago, made the point that the Government does not even define `entertainment'. This is the most extraordinarily inept government I have seen in 20 years in politics. Two days ago we debated a great range of amendments to the Trade Practices Act, the key provisions of which related to the word `unconscionable' but the word was not defined in the amendments. Today we see that entertainment is not defined. I say quite bluntly that section 51 of the Act has stood the test of time and, quite frankly, if there is any complaint in relation to the matters which have been raised by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) it must relate to the administration of section 51 and not to the wording of the section itself. How on earth could anybody argue this way when boards of review, the Federal Court of Australia and even the High Court of Australia have said over and over again that expenditure which is incurred in earning income is tax deductible and that the link must be direct? Here we have this Government, for the very first time, attacking what has been an accepted fundamental principle. Mr Fife —What will be next? Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member is so correct; what will be next? It is entertainment this week; it could be management fees next-or accountancy or telephones. `You have been using your telephone too much', says Big Brother. `You are spending too much on advertising'. Mr Braithwaite —The cost of motor vehicles. Mr HODGMAN —Yes-`You are not allowed to drive more than 50 kilometres to look for customers'. Mr Slipper —It is an evil government. Mr HODGMAN —This is evil legislation. I am obliged to the honourable member. This legislation is putting into action the big hand, the big paw, of this Hawke socialist Government. Make no mistake about it. Those who laughed two and a half years ago when I said that this was the Hawke socialist Government are not laughing now. We have a totally untrustworthy Prime Minister and a Treasurer who is rapidly falling into that category. I say in passing that it has been a very interesting week. We have heard the Treasurer of this country saying that words uttered by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in relation to the accord, which is linked with the tax package, were crazy and inappropriate. He then went further and said what the Prime Minister said was all bull. I cannot add the rest of his comments or, Madam Chair, you would have me out of the chamber. We find that another Minister is saying things as well. As honourable members know, the Treasurer said on 19 September that the taxation reform package, the accord and the handling of the economy were all locked in together. It is interesting to see this report in the Sun-Herald of 17 November, just a few days ago, which says: At least one senior minister in the Government believes this is the most likely initial action it would take to help bring the labour cost structure into line by renegotiating the Accord. The report further says-and this is linked to this tax package: The Minister told Sydney businessmen as much in a private meeting in Sydney recently. . . . . The Minister said that if the balance of payments deficit did not `swing around' soon, the further deferral of the productivity case would probably have to be looked at. And that admission was made well before the release of the October trade and balance of payment figures last week showing a worsening in Australia's position. . . . . This prospect, raised by the minister in Sydney, runs counter to the present attempts by the government to `tough out' the current wages cost situation in the belief that the balance of payments and the dollar will improve. I will now name the Minister. The Minister who made those statements in Sydney was none other than the Minister for Finance, Senator Peter Walsh. So this week we had the Treasurer say that the Prime Minister's words were inappropriate and crazy and that he is talking bull. The Minister for Finance, a week before, said almost exactly what the Prime Minister said. I think the Treasurer finds himself the meat in the sandwich. The short point is that he is running out of credibility. If he were an accountant he would be doing time in prison right now for what he has done to the economy of this country. This tax package is fraudulent, dishonest and dishonourable, and I will not have a bar of it-not even the good parts. In the two minutes remaining to me I want to say that I will not support anything in this tax package because it is corrupt. The tax cuts promised are ephemeral and will disappear before they have been reached. None of them come on line. Mr Braithwaite —Tax creep. Mr HODGMAN —As the honourable member said, tax creep and inflation will take care of that little con. What the Government is doing to section 51 is unforgivable. Mr Slipper —It is a national disgrace. Mr HODGMAN —It is a national disgrace. It is a national scandal. I repeat: If the Treasurer were an accountant he would be doing time in prison right now, and for a damned long time at that. I go further on down the line to fringe benefits, the quarantining of farm losses and the position in relation to negative gearing. Every single one of these initiatives will put the clamps on private enterprise and hold Australia back at a time when it should be surging forward. We are told that the economy is full-throttle, that it is going well. We hear lies, lies, all the time. The Government said, `We will float the dollar', and the dollar promptly sank. The Government said, `We will make interest rates come down', and they have gone up to Himalayan levels. It said, `We will control inflation', and inflation has doubled; it is twice that of our competitors. When are people going to wake up to the lies, lies, lies? The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(11.26) —Clause 6 is related to entertainment expenses. The bans on entertainment deductibility will have a substantial effect on small business. I have been called upon by the Opposition to represent small business in this place. I thought, in doing that, that I might pass a warning to the Treasurer (Mr Keating): `Ignore small business at your peril, because you will find that it is the great communicator in this community and if you upset it it will transfer its dissatisfaction to very many large parts of the community'. Small business is thoroughly dissatisfied with this measure-whether it is on the side of the person who buys a meal in a restaurant to promote his business or the restaurateur who provides the meal. The Treasurer and the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) are starting to kid themselves about the whole economic structure. They are now getting other departments to publish information to bolster up what they know not to be the case. Restaurants, hotels-in fact, everybody-are losing business because of this arrangement. Much of it is legitimate expenditure which people were allowed to claim under the previous arrangements. I know certain people in the furniture manufacturing area. They deal with the big retailers and have only one way of promoting their business; that is, to take the buyers to lunch. They will continue to do so. Their profits will be reduced by the additional tax. They will go back to their factory and find someone whom they can do without. A huge range of jobs will be lost. I know a bit about the industry. I was a hotelier for years. It is interesting that the Australian Hotels Association telexed me the other day to say that it had managed to list 1,400 cancellations of Christmas functions and noted the very slow bookings that were coming in; they were almost non-existent. The Treasurer says that the Commonwealth Employment Service has told him that everything is lovely. As a hotelier, one would not be seen dead at the CES office getting workers to serve people properly. A huge number of the workers are casuals. They know their way around. It has been suggested that some thousands of them will assemble on the lawns of the Parliament. I hope that the Treasurer will have the courage to go out there and tell them that they are all right, that everything is okay. Let us look at this tax proposal and the other proposals that are related to it. I will speak on those proposals now so that I will not have to take up further time of the Committee. Taxation, if it is properly done, is about simplicity, certainty, equity and visibility. There is not much evidence in this tax package that will meet those sorts of criteria. The Bill is not about tax cuts. There are no tax cuts in this legislation. They are somewhere down the track in a year or two. We know what the National Australia Bank has said about those tax cuts. In its last survey it said, talking about the so-called tax cuts and the new tax rates: No attempt has been made to compensate for the effects of inflation on income between now and June 1987 when the new rates come into effect. This means that a taxpayer on average weekly earnings in June 1985 and paying 22.4 per cent of salary in tax will actually pay 23.4 per cent when the new tax scales come into effect two years later, should average earnings increase by 8 per cent per annum . . . All the indicators are that they will grow much more quickly than that. Housewives can tell us what is happening to inflation. They know what it is like at the checkout. The honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) keeps telling us that his price watch group has identified inflation running at an average of 12 per cent at the checkout. He seems to think that that has something to do with profiteering. It is not profiteering. The big firms have recently reported higher profits and higher turnover, but lower margins. They are sacrificing their margins, and that is where profiteering would occur. Do not let us ever get that into our minds. We are told about these wonderful tax cuts. We are always being told about the honest taxpayers and how they get diddled in all of these arrangements. I heard that said when the Government was in opposition. It said that the honest taxpayer had been diddled by bottom of the harbour activities. Then Treasurer Howard brought in the legislation that got $500m for this Government, but did it give any of that money to the honest taxpayers? It did not give them a penny; it spent it. Taxes have gone up and up. What the Government is on about with clauses 6 and 9 is the 12 millionaires syndrome. I heard a speaker say tonight: `We introduced the assets test and we caught 12 millionaires'. The Government also disadvantaged about 50,000 honest, genuine, pensioners who have a tiny block of land. However, that was quite acceptable, given the Government's mentality. Mr Slipper —How many? Mr TUCKEY —At least 50,000 pensioners got hurt so that the Government could catch 12 millionaires. When the Government discovered the 12 millionaires it ought to have sent them to a psychiatrist because they must not have known much about the difference between the interest one could get on $1m and the amount of a pension. Those people need other sorts of help. The Government did not have to hurt all those other people. The RATS proposal brought in on 19 September stated the following about this entertainment expense proposal: It is recognised that this will mean that, in a number of cases, deductions will be denied for genuine business expenses. There is, however, no practical alternative to disallowance across the board if effective action is to be taken to stop abuse in this area. I have a message for the Treasurer. There are things called business telephone calls. At the moment they are tax deductible. I estimate that the revenue to Telecom Australia from business telephone calls is of the order of $2,600m. At a tax rate of 46c in the dollar the Treasurer could save $1,000m. Honourable members all know that a percentage of the business calls made every day are in a non-tax deductible area-in other words, they are private calls. We know that they are made. If honourable members opposite want to follow the criteria I have just read from the RATS proposal, all they have to do is knock out business telephone calls. The logic is exactly the same but the Government sees it differently. Firstly, Bill Mansfield of Telecom's union would not let the Government do it and, secondly, that cannot be seen under the 12 millionaire syndrome. These are the sorts of problems we have with clause 6. Who does the Government think it is fooling? It will require people to report themselves for $30 if they get a meal in a cafeteria that does not make money. Who will do that? It is absolute tokenism. However, by putting this sort of thing into legislation the Government is turning honest people into crooks. People would not go to the trouble of telling the Government, but they will become dishonest. We know that the $100 note has re-appeared in the restaurant industry. Big heaps of cash are flowing back into the restaurant industry. Why? People who buy business meals and who have access to a cash register are now taking the money out of the till and paying cash. What will that do to the Government's proposed tax saving of $330m. Previously those people were prepared to put their expenses on their credit card and show it in their accounts. Their turnover will reduce by the order of the cost of their meals. They will be encouraged to do those sorts of things. That is what the Government is on about. It is not even smart. The Treasurer keeps telling us that we do not understand. We have been around, we do understand and we know what is achievable and what is not. The Government is suggesting that it will give massive tax cuts at some time in the future on the basis of these amendments, but that will not be so. Let me repeat: The Bill we are debating tonight does not give any tax cuts; it is all about more taxes. People are getting the medicine well ahead of the jam with this proposal. Time and again I have seen this Government come in here and on the grounds of equity and of spreading the tax burden impose more taxes. It does it all the time. The Australian public is starting to wake up. We now have a situation where if one gets a $10 wage increase one finds that one takes home about $5 or $6. That represents a cost of $14 to one's employer. Those sorts of sums do not add up. No wonder the economy is not going as well as has been claimed. The Treasurer throws around figures. I pointed out this morning in this place that the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd has recently drawn to our attention that over the last two years governments have borrowed $30 billion. We have had $17.5 billion of capital inflow, giving us $47.5 billion of borrowings in those two areas, yet the gross domestic product over that same two-year period grew by only $42 billion. If the Treasurer tried to run his antique shop on those sorts of arrangements, his bank manager would not be very pleased. Mr Keating —I do not have an antique shop. Mr TUCKEY —Well, the Treasurer has an antique clock, and I notice that that does not come under negative gearing or capital gains. Why was the Treasurer not prepared to treat himself in the same way as he has treated other people, such as farmers? That is the situation that exists there. The Treasurer must tell us where all his wealth comes from, if he does not have an antique business. I thought that was where it came from. Question put. That clause 6 be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 45 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Beazley, K. C. Jones BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J. Blewett, N. Kent, L. Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J. Brown, John Lamb, A. H. Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V. Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J. Charles, D. E. McHugh, J. Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleland, P. R. Maher, M. J. Cohen, B. Martin, S. P. Cross, M. D. Mayer, H. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B. Darling, E. E. Milton, P. Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G. Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P. Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T. Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D. Free, R. V. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W. Gear, G. Snow, J. H. Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R. Grace, E. L. Theophanous, A. C. Griffiths, A. G. Tickner, R. E. Hand, G. L. Uren, T. Hayden, W. G. West, S. J. Holding, A. C. Willis, R. Hollis, C. Wright, K. W. Howe, B. L. Young, M. J. Jacobi, R. Beale, J. H. Lloyd, B. Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S. Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J. Brown, N. A. Miles, C. G. Burr, M. A. Millar, P. C. Cadman, A. G. Nehl, G. B. Cameron, Donald Peacock, A. S. Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Porter, J. R. Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K. Conquest, B. J. Rocher, A. C. Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M. Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. Drummond, P. H. Shipton, R. F. Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC. Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N. Fischer, Tim Smith, W. Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M. Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W. Halverson, R. G. Watson, DavidHawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D. Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Hodgman, W. M. Humphreys, B. C. Aldred, K. J. Price, L. R. S. Coleman, W. P. Bilney, G. N. Everingham, P. A. E. Punch, G. F. Carlton, J. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clauses 7 and 8-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 9 (Deductions not allowable for entertainment expenses). Mr WHITE(McPherson)(11.43) —I move: (2) Clause 9, pages 7 to 16, omit the clause, substitute the following clause: Losses and outgoings ``9. Section 51 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting after sub-section (1) the following sub-section: `(1A) A deduction is allowable under sub-section (1) in respect of an entertainment expense which is directly attributable to gaining or producing assessable income or directly attributable to the purpose of gaining or producing assessable income.'.''. This clause is the centrepiece of the Bill. It denies legitimate business expenses. But the strange thing about this clause is that it has a whole host of exemptions. When the Government first mooted this legislation, it said that it was so difficult to sort out the legitimate claims from the illegal claims for entertainment expenses that it would abolish the lot. Of course, admittedly, half of them were legal but the Government decided that legitimate business entertainment expenses would be out regardless of the fact that this would penalise many of the genuine cases. What do we see in the legislation before us? We see a whole host of exemptions. Who, strangely enough, is going to rule on these exemptions when the claims are made? None other than the Commissioner of Taxation. Of course, that is what we have been proposing all along-that legitimate expenses, properly substantiated and properly vouched for, should be allowed. The Taxation Commissioner is the man to decide, as he does on all other claims for business expenses, with proper auditing and proper vouching. Another thing that must be commented on in this clause is the whole host of complex and unworkable rules. We have special rules for in-house dining and recreational facilities. We have penalties where non-employees eat at a canteen. We have distinctions for on-job meals. If some one eats in a canteen at 10 to five presumably he is okay, but if he eats at five to five the employer is going to be penalised. Some meals at some seminars are okay, but only after four hours. No recreational activities are allowed as a business expense. If a doctor goes to a medical seminar and tours a hospital or hospitals, no doubt that will be regarded as recreational, so that will be out. We have a cutting clause for different rates of depreciation on plant and equipment which is used for non-deductible entertainment. We have some complicated pro rata scale whereby if it is used for non-deductible entertainment it attracts some penalty. We have an exclusion of spouses-perhaps the Treasurer might like to clarify this-even though that spouse is a full time employee or a working partner in a business. It goes on and on, exemption after exemption. The Taxation Commissioner will be having nightmares. The bureaucrats will love it. What has to be asked is: Where is the great tax reform package that was promised some months ago? We have not got any tax reform. What we have is a Bill of 54 pages which has been rightly condemned by every business house throughout Australia as being complex and unworkable. To go with it, just for good measure, there is a memorandum that runs to over 100 pages. Again, the Taxation Commissioner will be the man who makes the judgment. This clause favours large business. It favours the unions and it reflects totally the Australian Council of Trade Unions influence on this legislation. Only those under industrial awards can be claimed for, so what we have got is a system of compulsory unionism. I urge the Committee to reject this clause. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(11.48) —The proposed introduction of a test that entertainment expense be directly attributable to gaining or producing assessable income or carrying on a business for that purpose may limit the circumstances in which deductions would technically be available, although the extent of that result is uncertain. I would not, however, do anything to overcome the fundamental problem of determining the true nature and purpose of entertainment claimed as a business expense. The dominant purpose test and any associated substantiation requirements rely on the ability to construe a business connection on the basis of an objective analysis of the available facts. What is it possible to construe from the fact that a person dined with a business associate? The only objective fact verifiable would be that the person incurred an amount of expenditure at a particular restaurant at a particular time. Apart from the receipt verifying this fact, the only other evidence that might be available would be a statement by the person as to the general substance of any discussions. It remains a simple course to ensure that business discussions occur over a lunch. It is even simpler to state that they occurred, whether they did or not, and a statement as to their relevance and importance by the person claiming the deduction would do nothing to provide an objective assessment of that matter. The essential difficulty with the business lunch is that there is nothing in the fact of dining that establishes an unambiguous business connection. We have made these points many times in the last few weeks in response to proposals that substantiation requirements can be introduced in respect of the question of entertainment and business lunches. They cannot be. We have also made it quite clear that we will seek to legislate in a way which is fair, and hence the complexity of the particular measure is designed to remove any distortion which may arise from the unintended application of the legislation. The members of the Liberal Party are shedding crocodile tears over the business lunch. The fact that people have been able to enjoy a higher standard of living than many other people, at the expense of other taxpayers, is something which is a blot upon the tax landscape of this country and it should have been removed or curtailed a long time ago. We on this side of the chamber oppose the amendment moved by the Opposition. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(11.51) —The Treasurer (Mr Keating) completely fails to address the fundamental point put by the shadow Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), in explaining the rationale behind the amendment. Before the Treasurer turns away and, ferret like, ignores what I am about to say-he may be slightly surprised by my concluding remarks in relation to the Opposition amendment-I appeal to him, before it is too late, not to trivialise the debate in relation to clause 9 and what the Government of which he is a member in proposing to do to section 51. Not even the Whitlam Government regarded section 51 as requiring amendment. Not even the Whitlam Government, with the three successive Treasurers that it had, wanted to fiddle with section 51. Dr Harry Edwards —This crowd is worse. Mr HODGMAN —This crowd makes the Whitlam Government look like a Sunday school picnic group. This socialist Treasurer, with a socialist Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)- Government members interjecting- Mr HODGMAN —Those members in Moscow corner can laugh and giggle as much as they like, but a few chickens are going to come home to roost. Mr Braithwaite —They don't take it seriously. Mr HODGMAN —They do not take it seriously. They are laughing about the 28,000 people currently employed in the restaurant and hospitality industry who will be out of work this time next year because of what the Government is doing. They are laughing about the one-quarter of the people working in the motor industry who will be out of jobs in 12 months time, and they are laughing at the countless hundreds of small businesses- Mr Goodluck —Like in Tasmania. Mr HODGMAN —In Tasmania and in the rural sector- Mr Peter Fisher —Young unskilled people. Mr HODGMAN —Young unskilled people. It is this corporate madness of the Hawke socialist Government. If one is big government, big business or big union one is welcome in the Prime Minister's office, but if one happens to be small business, to be rural or to be young and unskilled or, as the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) so validly commented, to be an unincorporated business, one will get what the Treasurer referred to the other day-I think they were his words-as the `bums rush'. This Government is just not interested in the nuts and bolts of private enterprise in Australia. Mr Keating —They were not the Treasurer's words. The CHAIRMAN —Order! I think the honourable member should withdraw that expression. Mr HODGMAN —I am sorry. He said `bull'; it was not `bums rush'. He said that the Prime Minister had said `bull', and honourable members can read that on page 1 of yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald. It has not been denied by anybody. I apologise, `bull' was the word. What the Government is saying to the small businesses of Australia-- Mr Keating —You need help badly. Mr HODGMAN —I need help badly? I think, brother, you need help badly. Whatever I have done in my life, I have never been involved in money in the boots of cars and all that sort of thing. The Treasurer is going to get to the situation where his megalomania, combined with the mythomania of the Prime Minister-look that one up in the dictionary-will lead him to prevail upon those responsible for our coat of arms to remove the kangaroo and the emu and replace them with the bandicoot and the ferret. That is the way we are going in this country. It is a race between the hammer and sickle and the bandicoot and the ferret as to what we finish up with in our coat of arms. The Treasurer walks away, having said that I did not know what I was talking about. He should talk to the people who are involved in private enterprise. The Treasurer is talking about the very lifeblood of our taxation system which he is now going to take away. Of course, Mrs Child, you would understand because you represent an electorate which feels unemployment, feels the tragedy of youth unable to find a job. I do not know why Government members snigger and sneer. They should look at the Melbourne Herald story a few weeks ago about the elderly ethnic lady who built up a restaurant in Melbourne. That migrant lady worked her guts out to build up that restaurant, one of the best continental restaurants in Melbourne. She said in simple but touching language: `The choice I have to make is whether I sack the chef who is married with three children and who has a mortgage to pay on his house, or whether I tell the 17-year-old apprentice, with hope and enthusiasm in her eyes, that there is no job for her'. Government members can laugh, as they laughed about the 89-year-old war widow from World War I who had her pension ripped off her, but the Government quickly got that one put back on. She got her pension back after her photograph appeared with her late husband's war medals in the Melbourne Herald. The Government fixed that up administratively. What does the Treasurer propose to do about the migrant lady with her restaurant in Melbourne? Mr Hollis —She has been listening to your scare stories. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member should not worry about my scare tactics. With people like him wandering about this place, I do not have to use scare tactics. No wonder children are not allowed in the public galleries after 9 o'clock at night with people like him looking at them, but that is another story. Members of the Hawke socialist Government are treating this as a matter where their doctrinaire commitment to socialism overrides everything. The Treasurer said a few moments ago that there had been reports of only two job losses in Brisbane. I would like to know where he is getting his information, because the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith), the honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr), and the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles) will tell the Treasurer that already 88 jobs have been lost in the restaurant industry in tiny Tasmania. So the Treasurer should not try to tell me that only two jobs have been lost in Brisbane. Mr Peacock —What about the apprentice chefs at the William Angliss school in Melbourne? Mr HODGMAN —Yes, there are the apprentices at the William Angliss school. This shows the double standard of this Government. On the one hand, the Government says that it will have this very important training scheme and subsidise people to come into the hospitality industry, and on the other hand it treats them like this. I am not talking about big millionaires' restaurants. I have never had an expense account in my life so I am not one of the free lunch brigade. I will tell the Committee about Taco Bill's restaurant in Hobart. That restaurant was started by a young Polish fellow. After less than six years hard work, he has paid for the property and his house. He employs five staff and his margin of profit is about 10 per cent a year. What proportion of his business is on credit card? About 10 per cent, he says. The Treasurer is taking away 10 per cent of that little business at Taco Bill's. Government members may laugh their heads off, but I would like to see them come down to Tasmania and confront Mr Mikusz, his wife and kids. The callousness of this Government is displayed, and I would remind the Treasurer that pride comes before a fall. The Treasurer's megalomania is exceeded only by the Prime Minister's mythomania. The Standing Orders do not permit me to call him a liar and the Treasurer a fraud, but I can call the Prime Minister a mythomaniac and I will call the Treasurer what he is, a thimble rigger. If he looks at Roget's Thesaurus he will find out what a thimble rigger is. We have a fiscal ferret who is a thimble rigger as Treasurer of this country and a Prime Minister who is a pathological mythomaniac. The Treasurer's laughter and callousness will echo right around this nation. We are not on air, but the tapes will be kept. Wherever the Treasurer goes, people will remember him as a member of the Government that killed Christmas. Can the Treasurer see how mean he has become? This year a Christmas party will cost 149 cents for every dollar spent. That is mean. When is the Treasurer going to start putting his hand into the Christmas stockings? A little mate of mine runs a bodyworks in Hobart. Last year his Christmas party cost him $500. This year, thanks to the Government, there will not be a Christmas party. How mean and miserable can the Government get? Robert James Lee Hawke, the bandicoot, and Paul James Keating, the ferret, have killed Christmas 1985. To conclude, I have to say with some sadness that I do not believe that section 51 requires any amendment at all. I believe that section 51 is right as it is. The Treasurer's problem is that he has not been administering it properly. Let me say bluntly that honourable members opposite will pay for it. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Friday, 22 November 1985 Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(12.01 a.m.) —I want to make a few observations in response to the remarks of the Treasurer, who appears to regard all opposition to the tax package as being a blot on society. He seems to regard the Opposition, because it opposes the tax package, as protecting tax cheats. That is far from the truth. I think that should be categorically denied. We understand that some fraud has been perpetrated in this regard. I agree with the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), who has said that avenues for fraud already exist. I suggest that simply accepting the Opposition amendment to clause 9 will clarify the situation. The amendment states: A deduction is allowable under sub-section (1) in respect of an entertainment expense which is directly attributable to gaining or producing assessable income or directly attributable to the purpose of gaining or producing assessable income. As I said, that will clarify the situation because it will link it to an actual deduction. The discretion has always been in the hands of the Australian Taxation Office. Some 10 years ago it was our lot that we had to find acquittal for any travelling expenses or entertainment expenses before they were allowed by the Taxation Office. I believe that this is just a grand piece of smoke-stacking-about eight pages of it-to try to come to grips with a situation in which equity would demand that we try to get the Tax Office to do its audit, to do its acquittal, and work from there. After all, as we understand, some forthcoming legislation will require politicians to acquit their expenses. Why, in the name of glory, can we not get expenses acquitted under this particular clearing up clause and save all the complexity which the Treasurer admits to? It is complex. If it is tax reform when it is as complex complex as this, maybe the Treasurer does not realise what is the dictionary meaning of complexity, simplicity, or whatever. I shall make one comment in connection with what the honourable member for Denison said when he suggested the substitution of the ferret and the bandicoot on our coat of arms. I have always understood that the emu and the kangaroo are on the coat of arms because they will never retreat, they cannot go backwards. The ferret and the bandicoot would be appropriate for us to describe this tax package, which has been retreating down the track for the last six months. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(12.04 a.m.) —I do not intend to make any references to animals in my remarks. The Government really is committing a travesty of justice in the way it is treating the Parliament this evening. It has guillotined debate and cut the time in which honourable members can speak. It is outrageous. Those higher school certificate students around the nation who are studying politics would be appalled by what the Government is doing to the parliamentary process. It really is an outrageous way to treat the parliamentary process. I refer to clause 9 which is presently before the House and say that I support the Opposition's amendment to this clause. I have risen to speak because of the hypocrisy and inconsistency of the remarks of the Treasurer (Mr Keating). He has made similar statements throughout. He spoke very hollow words and indulged in a very hollow argument. He said that the Government is doing away with this deduction for entertainment expenses, for lunches and dining out, because businessmen have been dining out at the expense of the taxpayer, and that is a blot of some description or other. I disagree with that statement because I think that legitimate expenses ought be deductible when carrying on a business in terms of section 51, as the honour- able member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) has said a number of times in this House. I am reminded that the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) has also made that point. The Treasurer is saying that the tax deductible lunch, the tax deductible meal, is a rort and a rip-off; but he is not endorsing his own argument because he is supporting the same sort of activity and behaviour if it takes place inside a business in an eligible dining facility-a canteen, dining room or similar facility-or if it takes place at an eligible seminar. He cannot have his cake and eat it too. He is looking through the glass darkly in his argument. He is saying that it is a distortion in the economy to have people conduct their legitimate business at lunches and dinners. He is saying: `That is a distortion. Let us do away with it'. But he is creating a greater distortion by saying that in-house catering in canteens, dining rooms or similar facilities is an allowable deduction. There are eight pages of gobbledegook in this clause which, as the speaker who preceded me from this side said, is extremely complex. It will involve businesses, particularly small businesses that do not have the time and cannot afford it, in enormous amounts of paper work. That brings me to the further point that all of these amendments amount to greater interference in and regulation of the private sector, particularly small firms. The Government is saying that it is trying to cut back the paper work burden, to reduce regulation and interference with small businesses or small firms, but this package contains complex clauses, sub-clauses and proposed new sections. How will businesses be able to interpret this? They will need to employ banks of accountants and lawyers. This Government is creating more paper work, more regulation and more interference. It is interfering with businesses' ability and freedom to carry on business in the way they deem best. The Government is saying: `You can advertise, you can have seminars, you can have in-house recreational facilities'. It is interfering with the freedom of businesses in Australia to carry on business in the way they deem best and it is doing so by creating this enormous amount of paper work, regulation and interference. I make the point-it is a point that has been made in this House previously but it needs reinforcing and reiterating-that restaurants have been hit and unemployment has been created. Job opportunities for those now graduating from the catering and hospitality schools will be fewer and they will be limited. Restaurant business has not only decreased, but the value of the good will of those restaurants has been severely hit by these measures. Recently I attended a meeting of 200 restaurateurs and their employees in Melbourne. One woman who ran a restaurant had put it on the market. She had a purchaser willing to purchase it for $300,000. She now finds that that business is worthless because the goodwill has been wiped out as a result of these measures introduced by the Government. Mr Donald Cameron —They could not care less. Mr SHIPTON —It is outrageous. The Government could not care less. It is another measure striking at small businesses. It is striking at one of the sectors of the economy that has the potential to provide jobs, not only for the young but for the unskilled, women, migrants, and particularly for students working their way through tertiary institutions. Mr Rocher —It makes a nonsense of capital gains tax. Mr SHIPTON —It does make a nonsense of capital gains tax. Not only will restaurants, their suppliers and employment be affected but also the value of many restaurants around Australia will be wiped out as a result of the Government measures. I was in a wholesale butchers in Melbourne last Saturday morning and I was told that many restaurants had cut by half the amount of meat that they ordered as a result of the measures of this Government. These measures will affect the butchers, the greengrocers, the fruit and vegetable merchants and the primary producers-the horticulturalists, the beef producers, the chicken producers and the wheat farmers. Primary industry will be affected as the effects of these measures are felt in the economy. That will be a further disaster to the state of the nation. Those industries that act as suppliers, such as the fishing industry, the fishmongers, the launderers, the bakers and the butchers, will also be affected. The Treasurer yawns. Well may he yawn because this may well be the last laugh that will be on him. I conclude by saying that these measures are hypocritical, inconsistent and strike at the heart of Australia-the small firm and the small business. Question put: That the amendment (Mr White's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr P. H. Drummond) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 71 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S. Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J. Braithwaite, R. A. Miles, C. G. Brown, N. A. Millar, P. C. Burr, M. A. Nehl, G. B. Cadman, A. G. Peacock, A. S. Cameron, Donald Porter, J. R. Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Reith, P. K. Connolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C. Conquest, B. J. Ruddock, P. M. Cowan, D. B. Sharp, J. Downer, A. J. G. Shipton, R. F. Edwards, Harry. Sinclair, I. McC. Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N. Fischer, Tim Smith, W. Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M. Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W. Halverson, R. G. Watson, DavidHawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D. Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Hodgman, W. M. Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J. Blewett, N. Kent, L. Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J. Brown, John Lamb, A. H. Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V. Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J. Charles, D. E. McHugh, J. Child, J. McLeay, LeoChynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J. Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P. Cohen, B. Mayer, H. Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P. Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G. Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P. Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T. Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D. Free, R. V. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W. Gear, G. Snow, J. H. Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R. Grace, E. L. Theophanous, A. C. Griffiths, A. G. Tickner, R. E. Hand, G. L. Uren, T. Hayden, W.G. West, S. J. Holding, A. C. Willis, R. Hollis, C. Wright, K. W. Howe, B. L. Young, M. J. Jacobi, R. Humphreys, B. C. Aldred, K. J. Price, L. R. S. Coleman, W. P. Bilney, G. N. Everingham, P. A. E. Punch, G. F. Carlton, J. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(12.20 a.m.) —I move: Clause 9, page 13, lines 39 to 44 and page 14, lines 1 and 2, omit proposed sub-section 51AE (10), insert the following sub-sections: `` `(10) Paragraphs (5) (g) and (h) do not apply in relation to- (a) a loss or outgoing incurred by the taxpayer to the extent to which the loss or outgoing is- (i) in respect of the provision of entertainment to a person (including the taxpayer) that is in respect of, or incidental to, the person's attendance, while undertaking deductible travel, at a seminar other than- (A) an exempt training seminar; or (B) a seminar to which paragraph (a) of the definition of ``eligible seminar'' in sub-section (1) applies (whether or not the seminar has a continuous duration of not less than 4 hours), not being the provision of entertainment consisting of- (C) accommodation or travel; or (D) entertainment by way of food or drink otherwise than at a meal during which, or during part of which, the whole or a part of the seminar occurs; or (ii) in respect of the provision of entertainment to a person (including the taxpayer) that is in respect of, or incidental to, the person's attendance, otherwise than while undertaking deductible travel, at a seminar; or (b) a loss or outgoing incurred by the taxpayer to the extent to which the loss or outgoing is in respect of the purchase of food or drink in connection with overtime worked by the taxpayer as an employee. `` `(10A) A reference in sub-section (10) to deductible travel is a reference to travel undertaken by a person in circumstances where, if the person incurred expenditure in taking meals by himself or herself in the course of undertaking that travel, a deduction would, but for this section, be allowable to the person under section 51 in respect of that expenditure.''. Clause 9 of the Bill, as introduced, will insert provisions in the income tax law to deny deductions for entertainment expenses. The amendments now proposed are of a technical kind designed to clarify the operation of the provisions in circumstances where expenses are incurred while undertaking business related travel. It is possible that, as introduced, the provisions could have the effect of disallowing deductions for the cost of meals incidental to that travel, notwithstanding that they are unrelated to the provision of entertainment to another person. They might also apply in limited circumstances to deny deductions for the cost of travel and accommodation incidental to attending a business related seminar. These consequences were clearly not intended by the Government and the amendments will clarify the operation of the law in this area. Full details of the amendments are contained in the supplementary explanatory memorandum being circulated to honourable members. I commend the amendments to the Committee. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(12.22 a.m.) -This legislation was introduced on Friday of last week. We have two pages of amendments. They are all complex. What will happen within another week or another month? This highlights the fact that the legislation is not worthy of being put into our statutes. Whilst we will not object to the amendments we highlight the fact that the provisions are complex and the Government does not know what it is doing. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(12.23 a.m.) —I have three quick questions to ask the Treasurer (Mr Keating): First, as entertainment is not defined in the Bill will he define it now? Secondly, what is the meaning of `incidental'? Thirdly, why did the Government pick a time of four hours for seminars? Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 10 agreed to. Clause 11 (Deduction of expenditure on conserving or conveying water). Mr PETER FISHER(Malley)(12.23 a.m.) —Is there no one within this Government who recognises the crisis in confidence and the financial crisis of rural Australia? When will someone listen and stop this ceaseless attack upon the productive sector? Budget after Budget, mini-Budget after mini-Budget-and now tax packages-are destroying initiative, particularly in small business and rural industries. This Bill is just one of the frustrated attempts of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to reform the taxation system. Let no one be under any illusion: The reforms are tax collecting mechanisms only. When my Government introduced the 100 per cent tax write-off for water conservation, to which this clause refers, it introduced new water management improvement projects to the whole of the Australian irrigation system. Its intent was quite clear. It was to give an incentive to individuals to improve their security of water supply, combat drought and provide new bores, dams, reticulation and irrigation systems. There has been a revolution throughout the Murray Valley and the Murray-Darling basin. Laser land levelling techniques have been employed, cutting down labour and watering costs. They have reduced the usage and wastage of water and eliminated excessive drainage into creeks and river systems. Improved farm management practices and appropriate urban disposal schemes are obviously the most significant factor in salinity control. Why then has the Government fiddled at the edges of this tax measure, creating uncertainty and unnecessary taxation complications? As I said before, it is for one reason and one reason only-to collect an additional $25m in revenue annually. What a farce this is. We all recognise that the big announcement of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) about a new ministerial council to provide an inter-management plan for the Murray-Darling basin is just a gimmick before the South Australian election. Mr Porter —Hear, hear! Mr PETER FISHER —The honourable member for Barker agrees with me. The Government promised in that statement to spend $1m a year on research, and each State government was to spend somewhere in the vicinity of $250,000 on programs to reduce salinity. We were to receive an increase of $1.5m in our efforts to combat salinity but would suffer a loss of $25m through this tax measure-in other words, a net loss to the productive sector of $23.5m. The Murray-Darling basin contributes some $10,000m to our economy each year. It produces 50 per cent of the nation's crops, 50 per cent of its sheep and 25 per cent of its cattle and dairy products. It is the most successful and decentralised horticultural region in Australia. But each year, as everyone in this chamber should know, salinity costs $150m annually in lost production. Each day some 10,000 tonnes of salt crosses the Victorian-South Australian border via the Murray River. Under the present income tax law capital expenditure incurred on plant or structural improvements for the purpose of conserving or conveying water for use in a business or in primary production is fully deductible in the year in which it is expended. But what does this clause mean? It means that the deduction available for drainage works will now depend on the purpose for which those works are undertaken. Expenditure incurred in the construction of drainage works as part of an irrigation scheme will be eligible for five equal 20 per cent deductions. We are seeing the removal of the 100 per cent wipe-off. This will mean that people who are converting to a more efficient and more appropriate irrigation system-for example, from flood to drip irrigation-will not get that same benefit. On the other hand, where drainage work involves controlling salinity or assisting in drainage control-I emphasise the words `drainage control'-that is undertaken primarily for the purpose of preventing or redressing land degradation, it will be eligible for immediate deduction in that year in which the expenditure is incurred. The Federal coalition parties will oppose changes to this full year tax write-off for water conservation projects. In our view it is essential that farmers have far-sighted Commonwealth incentives to encourage them to maximise the potential of their agricultural export industries, which are still the backbone of Australia's export trade. Help is needed now for small business and primary industry. In recent weeks there has been a massive increase in the number of families in regional areas, particularly in the northern part of Victoria and parts of South Australia, seeking family income support. Why remove these incentives that encourage private endeavour and contribute to the overall health of the national economy. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(12.28 a.m.) —I wish to speak to clause 11, which seeks to amend section 75B of the Income Tax Assessment Act, which also concerns water. I support the comments of the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher). Every farmer, every land owner, throughout Australia will be very concerned about this provision. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) asserts that in the 1986-87 financial year there will be a saving of $25m, with a saving of $20m in 1987-88. It is also of interest to note that in the provisions concerning the deduction of expenditure on the prevention of land degradation only approximately $4.6m will be returned to the land holder. So basically, when we balance it out, the Treasurer is taking away from the land owner by way of these provisions in the tax package we are debating. I point out that there is a great responsibility for government to encourage the private land owner to undertake his own water conservation works of any nature-whether for the building of a dam or a reticulation scheme. As my friend the honourable member for Hinkler (Mr Conquest) pointed out to me today, there are many trickle schemes in Queensland and elsewhere that are only 12-month schemes and need to be renewed. It is essential that a land owner be allowed to take off the actual taxation deduction over a 12-month period. Under the current legislation it will be a five-year period. I feel that it should be optional for the taxpayer to do what he would like to do. If he wishes to write off the deduction over a 12-month or a five-year period that is all right, but he must be able to choose. It has always concerned me that the governments of this nation have been very lax in meeting their responsibility to return some of our general capital to productive works such as water conservation. There are those within the community who will argue that such works are not productive. I do not agree with that. What we have to do is to encourage a land owner to undertake work on his farm, or encourage a group of farmers within a community to do so, such as we see within the Riverina district. Those are the people we have to encourage. We will encourage them only by giving them taxation concessions. As the honourable member for Mallee has said, farmers receive a return of 2 per cent on their capital outlay. That is a very minimal return. I oppose this entire tax package. I cannot see the Treasurer delivering it. When one compares the working hours of this nation-that is, 36 to 38 hours a week-with those of nations around the world that work 44 and 48 hours a week, one sees that there is no hope for us to compete successfully. Many of my electors and I are concerned as to the future economy of this land of ours. The rural producer has a responsibility to bring our economy back. He will be the person who will be expected to do that in the long run. There is no better way than by water conservation. Water is like the blood in our bodies in that it keeps us going. If a farmer does not have water to put on his land he will not be able to compete with other primary producing countries and this country will be lucky to be fed. If we are not very careful our younger generations will be working in Asia in 20 years time, given the way our economy and our future planning are going. I am very serious in what I say. People should be given the incentive to work. I do not think that there is a more productive way of spending our financial resources than by putting them into private water conservation works. Many small farmers within my electorate and elsewhere-people who milk only 30 or 40 cows and run about 100 head of beef-want to put dams on their land. They want to irrigate areas of 10 acres or more. They want to reticulate water for domestic purposes or for rural stock. Surely to goodness, given the small income that these people have, they should be allowed to get some tax advantage. This advantage is not there, as can be seen from the figures I cited at the beginning of my speech. The Government is saving itself funds and is not putting the money back into the pockets of the rural producers. I was Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources in New South Wales. I planned water schemes and encouraged the land owners to undertake their own schemes. There is nothing more exciting for any person-a member of parliament, a public servant or whoever-than to be able to say to one's population: `Here is a proposal for a scheme'. What did the New South Wales Labor Government do? It took away the grants which were provided to farmers to undertake private works. Here a Commonwealth government is doing the same thing as far as taxation is concerned. Some deduction is still there because work can be written off over a five-year period. The Opposition is pointing out that the Government is not putting back what it is taking out. I ask the Treasurer to be sensible about this. The National Farmers Federation is concerned, we are concerned and every person around the countryside is concerned, not only for the sake of encouraging water resource development but also for the sake of creating work. If a person shows a profit from his land he will employ more people; he will buy more machinery and parts for machinery in his local town. He will keep the industry going. These are the little things that really matter to the little businessman about whom we are talking. Some 95 per cent of the 170,000 people employed on the land in Australia today are little people who are battling. My neighbours, a man and a wife, have about 120 acres of land. They work from 5 o'clock in the morning until 7 o'clock at night seven days a week. Talk about slave labour and poverty. These people are growing crops, they have chooks, and they take advantage of everything. They have to produce their own food on the property. Today many landowners have to do this. Government members-Ha, ha! Mr COWAN —It is all very well for honourable members opposite to laugh. It is no laughing matter when one accepts reality and looks at some of the farms throughout the country. The Government is grinding them into the earth. Since it came to power in March 1983 it has taken over $480m from the farmers of this country. This is another $17m or $18m that the Government is taking away in the form of concessions to the industry. I do not like the whole of this tax package. I have dealt only with the involvement of water in the future of agricultural production in this great land of ours. We have a responsibility, as elected representatives of the people, to encourage the individual so that he can develop our soil, assist with soil conservation as well as water conservation, and produce for himself and the future of this country. Mr PORTER(Barker)(12.37 a.m.) —I rise to support the contributions made tonight by the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher) and the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan). The thrust of this measure is to remove the existing tax deductibility for the write-off of water conservation projects. The tax deductibility allowed until the Treasurer (Mr Keating) introduced this measure encouraged farmers to change their irrigation practices from flood irrigation, which in many instances exacerbates our salinity problems, to things such as drip and spray irrigation. The Government is not satisfied with bringing the farming community to its knees; it now also wants to rip $25m out of farmers' pockets. The great proportion of the expenditure the Government will save with this measure is expenditure which farmers use to overcome salinity problems. What a farce it is that tonight we are debating a measure whereby the Government will rip $25m out of the pockets of the farmers of this country, a great proportion of which money was used to overcome salinity problems while at the same time the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) and the Bannon Government are parading on the political stage pretending to be interested about the salinity problems of the River Murray. This Government pulls $25m out of the pockets of those who are trying to do something about salinity problems and this Government and the Bannon Government pretend to be interested and set up yet another committee. Mr Braithwaite —Hypocrites. Mr PORTER —They are indeed hypocrites. Not only is this measure used by farmers to overcome salinity problems, but also is it used for water conservation. Australia is one of the most drought-prone countries in the world. I realise that the Government would not understand that. Farmers are conservative people. They like to try to insure against drought. This Government has done everything it can to take away any incentive for farmers to look after themselves in bad times. Income equalisation deposits are now worthless. The Government has undermined tax averaging. Instead of encouraging farmers to provide for the hard times, the Government in this measure is now taking away another incentive that farmers had to provide for those hard times by undertaking water conservation measures. As it is 12.40 a.m., I will not take my full time in this debate. Government members interjecting- Mr PORTER —I know that Government members are not interested in the farming community, the backbone of Australia. They could not care less about them. They just want to push through this legislation and take another $25m out of the pockets of the farmers. They do not care. The future of this country is in the hands of the farmers, miners and manufacturers who make money and export for the people in Government members' electorates; but they do not care. They just want to push through this legislation at 12.40 a.m. We will not stand by and let them do it. We will oppose this legislation. Question put: That clause 11 be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr P. H. Drummond) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 44 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J. Blewett, N. Kent, L. Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J. Brown, John Lamb, A. H. Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V. Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J. Charles, D. E. McHugh, J. Child, J. McLeay, LeoChynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J. Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P. Cohen, B. Mayer, H. Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P. Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G. Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P. Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T. Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D. Free, R. V. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W. Gear, G. Snow, J. H. Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R. Grace, E. L. Theophanous, A. C. Griffiths, A. G. Tickner, R. E. Hand, G. L. Uren, T. Holding, A. C. West, S. J. Hollis, C. Willis, R. Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W. Jacobi, R. Young, M. J. Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S. Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J. Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Brown, N. A. Miles, C. G. Burr, M. A. Millar, P. C. Cadman, A. G. Nehl, G. B. Cameron, Donald Peacock, A. S. Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Porter, J. R. Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K. Conquest, B. J. Rocher, A. C. Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M. Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F. Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC. Fischer, Tim Slipper, P. N. Fisher, Peter Smith, W. Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M. Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W. Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, DavidHicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P. Hodges, J. C. White, P. N. D. Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Humphreys, B. C. Aldred, K. J. Price, L. R. S. Coleman, W. P. Bilney, G. N. Everingham, P. A. E. Punch, G. F. Carlton, J. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(12.48 a.m.) —I wish to refer to clause 14 of the Bill, which deals with the substantiation of certain expenses in relation to motor car use. Earlier tonight I attacked the Government for the way it intends to treat charities, which is a very separate issue from the provisions in this legislation. But the point I want to make is that this Government has again displayed its total insensitivity to the struggle of the private sector in its design of a mish-mash of requirements that people have to meet to substantiate a claim for a deduction for the use of a vehicle for business purposes. I will read into the record the type of requirements that will now be imposed upon the private sector. The total disinterest which has been displayed in the last few minutes is typical of this Labor Government on the whole Bill. It just could not care less. We have had Giggling Gerties sitting on that side-and that is not a reflection on the lady members. But Government members have all been like a pack of Giggling Gerties in rejecting the pleas of Liberal Party members and other members on the Opposition benches in relation to the way that people will be affected by the legislation. I want to read the type of requirements that Government members will be imposing on the business sector in relation to having to keep records of motor car use. They are as follows: . . . a daily log book or similar document in which, in respect of each journey undertaken in the car during the year of income in the course of producing assessable income of the taxpayer, an entry setting out particulars of- (i) the date on which the journey began and the date on which it ended; (ii) the respective odometer readings of the car at the beginning and end of the journey; (iii) the number of kilometres travelled by the car in the course of the journey; (iv) the purpose or purposes of the journey; (v) the name of the person, or the names of the persons, driving the car on that journey; (vi) the date on which the entry is made; and (vii) the name of the person by whom the entry is made . . . That is the type of gobbledegook that Government members are now imposing upon legitimate business. Then they go on further to claim-these people who are supposed to be interested in the rights of minorities-that the entries will be made `in the English language'. What about the poor Arabian, someone from Saudi Arabia who cannot even write English? Because he cannot write English, Government members will be dispossessing him of an entitlement to a claim. I make these comments while the Treasurer (Mr Keating) is present because this is the type of rubbish that he is imposing on people to grab back a handful of dollars. While he is ripping back a few dollars on one account, he is splurging it on useless projects and schemes on the other. The other night we saw the introduction of the Bill of Rights, which will cost a heck of a lot of money to administer and build, and yet he is spending money in that area without thought and on this matter he is saying `Righto, little businessman out there. You must write all this out in English. You must tell us where you have been, who you have been with, who put the nozzle in the car to fill the tank-and all that type of rubbish. I just protest on behalf of the Australian business community that the Treasurer is so insensitive to the struggle that it is going through just to survive. Government members just do not seem to understand that every one or two minutes that people spend on doing this sort of task-two or three times or four, five, or six times a day-costs money. That is what it is all about. If the Government keeps going as it is, there will not be a private business sector to milk any more. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report-by leave-adopted. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(12.54 a.m.) —by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a third time. I should just like to place on record the efforts of the officers of the Taxation Office sitting in the House behind me and of the Department of the Treasury in designing this legislation. There was an enormous workload with a tax reform package of this size and, of course, we are only starting on the legislative workload. However, this is an important contribution and beginning to it. I place on record the Government's thanks to the officers of the Australian Taxation Office for the time and assiduous effort they have devoted to the design and fabrication of the Bills. Question put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 44 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J. Blewett, N. Kent, L. Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J. Brown, John Lamb, A. H. Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V. Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J. Charles, D. E. McHugh, J. Child, J. McLeay, LeoChynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J. Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P. Cohen, B. Mayer, H. Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P. Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G. Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P. Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T. Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D. Free, R. V. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W. Gear, G. Snow, J. H. Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R. Grace, E. L. Theophanous, A. C. Griffiths, A. G. Tickner, R. E. Hand, G. L. Uren, T. Holding, A. C. West, S. J. Hollis, C. Willis, R. Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W. Jacobi, R. Young, M. J. Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S. Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J. Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Brown, N. A. Miles, C. G. Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C. Cameron, Donald Nehl, G. B. Cameron Ewen (Teller) Peacock, A. S. Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R. Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K. Cowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C. Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M. Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J. Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F. Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC. Fischer, Tim Slipper, P. N. Fisher, Peter Smith, W. Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M. Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W. Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, DavidHicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P. Hodges, J. C. White, P. N. D. Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Humphreys, B. C. Aldred, K. J. Price, L. R. S. Coleman, W. P. Bilney, G. N. Everingham, P. A. E. Punch. G. F. Carlton, J. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Consideration resumed from 16 October, on motion by Mr Howe: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Keating) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 17 October, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Keating) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 17 October, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Keating) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 15 November, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Motion (by Mr Keating) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(1.06 a.m.) —Because divisions have not been taken, I rise to speak on the Income Tax (Companies, Corporate Unit Trusts and Superannuation Funds) Amendment Bill to record that I have voted against every single one of these measures in this fraudulent Hawke-Keating tax package. It will destroy this Government at the next Federal election. It is this Government's political death warrant and I hope that Labor members will damn well enjoy it. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. House adjourned at 1.07 a.m. (Friday). The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 21 November 1985: Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General fixing the dates on which the following Acts and sections of Acts shall come into operation- Customs and Excise Amendment Act 1982-Sections 22, 24, 74, 75 and 76-2 December 1985. Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Act 1985-Section 35-29 November 1985. Insurance Contracts Act 1984-1 January 1986. (In substitution for the paper presented on 19 November 1985). Remuneration Tribunal's Act-Remuneration Tribunal-Determination-1985/19-Holders of public offices on the Australian Science and Technology Council and other bodies. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Determinations listing fees and charges for purposes of- Cemetries Ordinance, dated 28 October 1985 Health Services Ordinance, dated- 8 October 1985. 5 November 1985. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1234) Mr Blunt asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 23 May 1985: Has the Attorney-General's Department or any statutory authority or organisation for which the Minister is responsible, employed consultants since March 1983; if so, (a) who has been employed; (b) for what purpose; (c) what working plan was given to them; (d) what was the cost of their services; (e) when did their services commence and finish; and (f) was any fee in excess of the initial quote; if so, by what amount. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: CONSULTANTS ENGAGED BY THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT (a) Name of consultant (b) Purpose of consultancy (c) Working plan given to consultant (d) Cost of consul- tant (e) Date commenced Date finished (f) Excess fee if any $ Price Waterhouse Associates Pty (Mr A. Richards) Implementation of computer facility for Legal Services group Consultancy brief 18,300.00 March 1983 September 1984 No Mr T. Beswick, Physiotherapist Consultant physiotherapist for prevention/treatment of Repetitive Strain Injury Provide rehab- ilitation programs; on-site advice re posture/furniture and refine work techniques 60.00 per hour increasing to 70.00 per hour from October 1985. (7 hours/week till 18.12.84, 9 hours/week thereafter- 23,050 spent to date) August 1984 Until June 1986 No Systems Control Programming Pty Ltd To assist the National Project Co-ordinator to devise and carry out tests on the computerised legal aid services system (CLASS) Consultancy brief 7,788.00 1 October 1984 15 October 1984 No Mr V. Blunden To write the text of a recruitment booklet for Legal Officers' Campaign Consultancy brief 1,000.00 April 1984 7 May 1985 No Mr G. Robertson Assist in drafting of Bill of Rights-develop and refine a paper on Racial Discrimination Consultancy brief 7,851.06 13 August 1984 March 1985 No Mr I. Temby Q.C. Establish Director of Public Prosecutions Consultancy brief 3,496.56 January 1984 February 1984 No Ms M. Neave To perform work for the Human Rights Task Force on amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act and on co-operative arrangements between the Commonwealth and States in the Equal Opportunity field Consultancy brief 9,887.00 March 1984 March 1985 No Mr N. Rees To perform work for the Human Rights Task Force on amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act and on co-operative arrangements between the Commonwealth and States in the Equal Opportunity field Consultancy brief 8,316.00 March 1984 March 1985 No Computer Power System specification Consultancy brief (Stage 1) for National Legal Aid Computer System. 50,000 22 June 1983 19 September 1983 No Mr J. Monro To prepare legislation to amend those NSW and Imperial laws in force in the ACT that are still needed or desirable, in order to adapt them to current ACT conditions and instrumentalities, and to repeal in application in the ACT, NSW and Imperial laws that are no longer necessary or desirable. Detailed discussion with consultant 166.75 per day (approx. 100 days engagement 12237.79 spent to date) July 1983 continuing No Professor A.R. Blackshield To advise on Human Rights Legislative Package. Consultancy brief 9,220.60 September 1983 March 1984 No Mr N. O'Neill To advise on Human Rights Legislative Package. Consultancy brief 7,070.90 September 1983 March 1984 No Mr A.C.C. Menzies O.B.E. Establishment of National Crime Authority and the DPP together with the Criminal Investigation Bill. Consultancy brief 53,325 February 1984 June 1985 No Mr C. Comans C.B.E., Q.C. Legal Drafting To undertake legal drafting work on the third draft of the family Court Rules 3,000.00 April 1984 May 1984 No R.V. Goode Consultants Pty. Ltd. (Mr R. Goode) Review of Departmental management and organisation Consultancy brief 23,967.55 July 1983 October 1983 No Mr C. Hermes, A.M. Interview committee member for the Veterans' Appeals Division of the AAT Consultancy brief 8,779.40 January 1985 July 1985 No Social Impacts Evaluate the Family Conciliation Centre Project Consultancy brief 174,146.00 February 1985 Until October 1986 No Peat Marwick Mitchell &Co. (Mr D. Crawford) Cost accountant member of the Federal Costs Advisory Committee Consultancy brief 9,750.00 allocated for 1985/86 financial year. July 1985 Continuing indefinitely No Koranya Pty Limited Assist the development of a computerised FOI document control system Consultancy brief 3,840.00 April 1985 July 1985 No Ms M. Johnson Consolidate the Legal Aid Bibliographies for the Commonwealth Legal Aid Council Consultancy brief 7.828.00 May 1985 Until December 1985 No Cost-a-comp To cost General Law Accounts, extended to include Family Law Accounts for the Australian Legal Aid Office Consultancy brief 16,041.17 (spent to date provisionally final figure) October 1983 Until October 1985 No CONSULTANTS ENGAGED BY THE COMMONWEALTH LEGAL AID COUNCIL University of Queensland, Dept. of Social Work. (Legal Needs of Social Security Claimants) To ascertain: * The scale and kinds of social security appeals; * The advantages or disadvantages of providing legal assistance. * How the existing methods of delivering legal assistance may be improved; and * Alternative methods of delivering legal assistance. As per terms of reference and contract executed and subject to the general supervision of a senior member of staff of the Attorney-General's Dept. and the Commonwealth Legal Aid Council 15,000.00 April 1982 February 1984 No Redfern Legal Centre-`Legal needs of institutionalised people' To ascertain: * whether there are groups of institutionalised people in Australia with significant unmet legal needs; * what the particular legal needs of institutionalised people are; and * how the legal needs of institutionalised people may be met efficiently. As per terms of reference and contract executed and subject to the general supervision of a senior member of staff of the Attorney-General's Dept. and the Commonwealth Legal Aid Council 14,000.00 May 1983 March 1985 No University of Queensland, Dept. of Social Work-`Legal Aid Needs of Youth' To determine: * whether any groups of young people in Australia have unmet legal needs; * what the legal needs of young people in Australia are; and * how the legal needs of young people in Australia can be met efficiently and economically As per terms of reference and contract executed and subject to the general supervision of a senior member of staff of the Attorney-General's Department and the Commonwealth Legal Aid Council 20,000.00 April 1985 Until October 1985 No Mr K.P. Duggan, Q.C., Adelaide `A Lawyer's Professional responsibility to Legal Aid' To prepare a discussion paper suitable for presentation at professional seminars and conventions canvassing the duties of a lawyer when applying for legal aid and in carrying out legal aid assignments As per terms of reference and contract executed and subject to general supervision of a senior member of staff of the Attorney-General's Department and the Commonwealth Legal Aid Council 1,500.00 April 1985 July 1985 No CONSULTANT ENGAGED BY THE AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF CRIMINOLOGY Tracker Electronics, Crows Nest. To advise the Australian Institute of Criminology on refurbishing of Audio and Audio Visual equipment User Requirement Brief 1,800.00 17 October 1984 16 November 1984 No CONSULTANTS ENGAGED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW COUNCIL Mr Jeffery Waincymer Prepare a discussion paper in relation to Administrative Review Council's project dealing with rights of review under the Anti-dumping Legislation Discussed with consultant by council's Director of Research 2,500.00 17 January 1985 Until December 1985 No Sir William Keys O.B.E. Project on migration appeals for Adminstrative Review Council Detailed discussions with consultant 1,434.00 April 1984 July 1984 NoCONSULTANTS ENGAGED BY THE INSTITUTE OF FAMILY STUDIES Professor Orjan Hultaker -Assist in preparations for the XXth International Sociological Assoc./Committee on Family Research Seminar (Melb.-Aug. 1984). Formal letter offering consultancy, including working plan. 12,768.00 6 February 1984 30 March 1984 No -Conclude arrangements for comparative research and to arrange publications of ISA/CFR seminar proceedings 27 August 1984 24 September 1984 No Mr David Scott Consultant to offer assistance on current and emerging policy issues of the Institute of Family Studies Formal letter offering consultancy, including working plan. 200.00 March 1984 March 1984 No Mr George C. Bennie Advise the Institute of Family Studies on a project to develop a family Data Bank Formal letter offering consultancy, including working plan. 9,823.75 March 1983 May 1984 No Ms Meredith Edwards Advise and assist the Institute of Family Studies in relation to the economic aspects of its studies. Formal letter offering consultancy, including working plan. 100.00 11 March 1983 11 March 1983 No CONSULTANT ENGAGED BY THE LEGAL AID COMMISSION (AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY) Mr G. C. Rainbow Review the A.C.T. Legal Aid Commission and make recommendations as to any desirable changes, inter alia against the background of the problems highlighted in the Pryor Report. -Review classification of Legal &Administrative Staff-Assist Chairman and the Commission in their consideration of any proposals for reorganisation &reclassification Consultancy brief 3,000.00 September 1984 November 1984 No CONSULTANTS ENGAGED BY THE CONSUMER AFFAIRS ADVISORY COUNCIL Mr M. J. Vernon, Chairman of the A.C.T. Consumer Affairs Council Subject of hazard assessment of standard setting for the National Consumer Affairs Advisory Council. Consultancy brief 163.00 per day (maximum of 20 days engagement) 5 June 1985 Until October 1985 No Holt Public Relations NSW Pty Ltd Recommend ways in which public awareness of Council and Council's profile could be raised. -Examine feasibility of, and structure proposal for an annual consumer affairs address. -Investigate possible audience and the most effective means of using each of the persons chosen to give such addresses. -Comment on arrangements for the most effective type of media coverage. -Examine feasibility of linking up such an address with World Consumer Rights Day. Consultancy brief 5,000.00 19 June 1985 Until November 1985 No CONSULTANTS ENGAGED BY THE LAW REFORM COMMISSION Mr J. Q. Ewens CMG, CBE, QC. Assistance in preparation of draft legislation Review material presented and comment 8,426.29 1 March 1983 Continuing indefinitely No Mr Stephen Brown Give detailed background briefing on the operation of US insolvency law 5 days detailed discussions 1,198.54 19 November 1984 23 November 1984 No Mr Russell Hogg Prepare a research paper on private prosecutions To be completed in 18 working days over 1 year 2,121.35 12 June 1983 31 May 1984 No Ms Sofie Watson Prepare Research paper on re-financing of houses and rental after divorce To be prepared by end of August 1985 1,500.00 18 December 1984 August 1985 No Associate Professor Ken Maddock Mr D. Bell Dr P. Sutton Dr J. Von Sturmer Provide comments on completed chapters of the Aboriginal Customary Laws Report Compete work in 4 days 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 21 May 1984 21 May 1984 21 May 1984 21 May 1984 25 May 1984 25 May 1984 25 May 1984 25 May 1984 No No No No Mr F. Eyre Provide editorial service for production of the Evidence Report Review written material and provide detailed editorial comments 900.00 2 August 1984 2 September 1984 No. Mr E. Kyrou Review a chapter of the Standing Report Complete work as soon as possible 700.00 19 January 1984 2 February 1984 No. Mr M. Corrigan Prepare a paper for consideration by Commission in preparing Interim Evidence Report Complete work as soon as possible 600.00 23 August 1983 6 September 1983 No. Associate Professor Robert Hayes Prepare report to Parliamentary Accounts Committee One day to complete 159.00 12 September 1983 12 September 1983 No. This list does not include honorary consultants engaged under section 23 of the Law Reform Commission Act 1973. CONSULTANTS ENGAGED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS Computer Power Pty Ltd Design an information system to assist investigative and legal staff in the work of the D.P.P.-Advise on future and data processing needs of Special Prosecutor Redlich-Review a proposed strategy for sharing A.D.P. facilities between Special Prosecutors Gyles &Redlich. Terms of reference designed by Special Prosecutor A.D.P. Steering Committee 105,800.00 March 1983 January 1984 No. Acorn Computer Services Pty Ltd Assist the implementation of a report prepared by Computer Power on required computer systems for D.P.P.-Assist in rationalisation of the computer system inherited from the Special Prosecutor's organisation-Further maintenance of these systems for D.P.P. Given Computer Power report to facilitate the implementation of its recommendations Initially rate of $155.44 per day from Nov. 83 increased to $250 per day from Nov. 84 2 June 1983 March 1986 No. Ohig Engineering Pty Ltd Assist in the specification of work required for the accommodation of computer equipment in each state capital office of the D.P.P. Investigate each site and prepare a report outlining the facilities to be provided at each site within 30 working days 7,500.00 21 May 1985 1 July 1985 No. CONSULTANTS ENGAGED BY THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Ms B. Chambers, Dr J. Pettman A Handbook for adult educators on countering racial prejudice Consultancy brief 5,000.00 September 1983 April 1985 No. Hodja Educational Resources Promotional activities and launch of Human Rights Film ``Talkback'' in Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne. Promotion of Talkback Consultancy brief 20,000.00 March 1985 September 1985 No. Peat Marwick (Mr N. J. Barrett Ms M. Stern Mr K. Mosey) Examine and report upon the need for improved information automation Consultancy brief 17,500.00 October 1984 June 1985 No. Mr. C. Henry National Schools Program to promote Human Rights teaching in Australian schools Consultancy brief 38,000.00 May 1985 Until November 1985 No. Ms M. Hinchey National Schools Program to promote Human Rights teaching in Australian schools Consultancy brief 18,000.00 May 1985 Until November 1985 No. Ms B. Miller The current aspirations of Aborigines living at Yarrabah re local management and Human Rights Consultancy brief 5,782.41 February 1984 May 1985 No. Mr L. Pape (Faleme Holdings) International Human Rights Law computerised information retrieval system Consultancy brief 2,300.00 July 1984 September 1985 No. Ms M. Cook Research into ``The Rights of Hearing Impaired People'' Consultancy brief 5,252.00 September 1984 Until December 1985 No. Ms M. Cook Additional consultancy on Human Rights of People with Deafness and Hearing Impairment Consultancy brief 5,504.00 January 1985 Until December 1985 No. Centre for Multicultural Studies-University of Wollongong Effects of the school system on students from non-English-speaking backgrounds Consultancy brief 5,079.00 June 1984 November 1985 No. Marian College Effects of the school system on students from non-English speaking backgrounds Consultancy brief 2,000.00 October 1984 May 1985 No. Ms H. Rumley Aboriginal Autonomy and Political Participation Consultancy brief 5,170.00 August 1984 June 1985 No. Council for Civil Liberties Human Rights and Prostitution Legislation in W.A. Consultancy brief 4,900.00 December 1984 September 1985 No. Victorian Multiple Sclerosis Society Research on Multiple Sclerosis and Human Rights Consultancy brief 2,120.00 September 1984 June 1985 No. Institute of Early Childhood Development Melb. C.A.E. Effects of the school system on students from non-English speaking backgrounds Consultancy brief 2,000.00 September 1984 June 1985 No. Aboriginal Education Branch W.A. Dept. of Education Attitudinal Change through positive visual and verbal exemplars Consultancy brief 5,000.00 September 1984 Until February 1986 No. Ms M. Mallard Aboriginal participation in Local Government Consultancy brief 4,783.33 September 1984 Services Terminated No. Reinforce ``Rights in Institutions'' self help video Consultancy brief 6,293.54 September 1984 February 1985 No. Yipirinya Effects of the school system on students from non-English speaking backgrounds Consultancy brief 5,000.00 October 1984 August 1985 No. Disability Resources Centre Rights of disabled persons living in institutions Consultancy brief 20,233.00 October 1984 May 1985 No. Dr B. Bullivant Monash Uni. Effects of school system on students from non-English speaking backgrounds Consultancy brief 10,976.76 October 1984 Until December 1985 No. Deakin Institute for Studies in Education, Deakin Unversity Research into the effects of the school system on students from non-English speaking backgrounds Consultancy brief 5,610.00 October 1984 Until November 1984 No. Indo-China Refugee Association Research into and submission of a report on refugees experiences of anti-Asian sentiment in the Brisbane area Consultancy brief 5,000.00 March 1985 August 1985 No. Professor G. Hawkins Human Rights and Commonwealth Prisoners Consultancy brief 6,682.00 March 1985 Until November 1985 No. Australian School Sports Council The performance differences between boys and girls under the age of 12 years in athletics and swimming in Australia Consultancy brief 14,500.00 June 1985 Until March 1986 No. Alternative Accommodation or Intellectual Disabilities Inc. Research into and the submission of a report on Human Rights and discrimination against intellectually disadvantaged persons seeking accommodation with the Community Consultancy brief 2,000.00 May 1985 June 1985 No. CONSULTANTS ENGAGED BY THE NATIONAL COMPANIES AND SECURITIES COMMISSION Mr N. Furnon and Mr M. Zacharin CENSAS (Centralised Scip Accounting System) Consultants were briefed to report on legislative changes stemming from the proposed introduction of CENSAS in Australian Stock Exchanges. Working arrangements set out in letter after agreement reached. 2,813.00 March 1983 July 1983 No. Professors P. Anisman and D. Harding Insider Trading project Consultants briefed to advise on the regulation of insider trading and to develop proposals for such regulation. Signed agreements concluded setting out terms. 17,567.00 May 1983 May 1985 No. Professor R. Walker `True and Fair' project Consultant briefed to prepare draft discussion paper on the accounting term ``a true and fair'' view and alternative statements. Signed agreements concluded. 3,000.00 August 1983 October 1983 No. Computer People Pty Ltd Common Data Analysis Consultant engaged to undertake the Common Data Analysis Project being the ongoing study of data requiring computerisation in the various Corporate Affairs jurisdictions. Working plan documented and agreed between NCSC/Computer People. Computer People Pty Ltd is a preferred supplier to the NCSC as a result of a tendering process. 23,977.00 to date October 1983 Continuing indefinitely No. Mr K. Riley Research on Accounting Standard AAS10 Consultant briefed by way of letter to prepare briefing paper for the Accounting Standards Review Board on Accounting Standard AAS10: Accounting for the Revaluation of Non-current Assets. Signed agreement concluded setting out terms. 800.00 February 1985 June 1985 No. Mr R. Williams Research on Accounting Standard AAS14 Consultant briefed by way of letter to prepare briefing paper for the Accounting Standards Review Board on Accounting Standard AAS14: Equity Method of Accounting. Signed agreement concluded setting out terms. 800.00 February 1985 June 1985 No. Dr W. John Kelly Research on Accounting Standard AAS18 Consultant briefed by way of letter to prepare briefing paper for the Accounting Standards Review Board on Accounting Standard AAS18: Accounting for Goodwill. Signed agreement concluded setting out terms. 800.00 February 1985 June 1985 No. Professor P. Dodd Study on partial takeovers Consultant briefed by way of letter to research and prepare a report on partial takeovers in Australia for the period 1981 onwards for the Companies and Securities Law Review Committee. Signed agreement concluded setting out terms. 1,670.00 August 1984 April 1985 No. Logica Pty Ltd Communications Study Consultant engaged to undertake a preliminary communications study for data linkage between Corporate Affairs jurisdictions. Working plan documented and agreed between NCSC/Logica. Logica Pty Ltd is a preferred supplier to the NCSC as a result of a tendering process. 3,250.00 March 1984 April 1984 No. CONSULTANTS ENGAGED BY THE TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION Arthur Andersen and Co. To undertake a study of the Commission's information retrieval requirements To identify the deficiencies in the Commission's current information systems, identify key information and system requirements and detail the computer application (Hardware and Software) to be developed. 38,716 May 1983 September 1983 716 Arthur Andersen and Co. To assist the Commission in developing ADP specifications for the Request for Tender (RFT) to be issued in respect of ADP implementation in the Trade Practices Commission. Assist in the preparation of detailed specifications of both Hardware and Software requirements for inclusion in the RFT. 14,345 September 1984 October 1984 No. C &K Economics To provide expert economic advice for the Trade Practices Commission for proceedings in the Federal Court. See (b) 5,390 September 1983 August 1984 No. Hendersen Consultants To provide expert economic advice for the Trade Practices Commission for proceedings in the Federal Court. See (b) 4,498 July 1983 November 1984 No. Mr P. B. Brett To provide expert advice in proceedings before the Trade Practices Tribunal See (b) 350 March 1985 March 1985 No. Roboff Pty Ltd To provide expert economic advice for the Trade Practices Commission for proceedings in the Federal Court. See (b) 2,359 19 May 1983 22 November 1983 No. Roboff Pty Ltd To provide expert economic advice for the Trade Practices Commission for proceedings in the Federal Court. See (b) 689 11 January 1984 25 March 1984 No. Dr Phillip Williams To provide expert economic advice for the Trade Practices Commission for proceedings in the Federal Court. See (b) 511 July 1983 July 1983 No. Dr Phillip Williams To provide expert economic advice for the Trade Practices Commission for proceedings in the Federal Court. See (b) 1,400 September 1983 September 1983 No. (Question No. 1251) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 23 May 1985: Has the Minister's Department, or any statutory authority or organisation for which the Minister is responsible, employed consultants since March 1983; if so, (a) who has been employed, (b) for what purpose, (c) what working plan was given for them, (d) what was the cost of their services, (e) when did their services commence and finish, and (f) was any fee in excess of the initial quote; if so, by what amount. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honour- able member's question is as follows: Details of consultants employed by the Department of Aviation and the Independent Air Fares Committee are set out in the table below, as at July 1985. Trans Australia Airlines and Qantas have advised that the information requested is commercial in confidence. It would therefore be inappropriate for the information to be provided. DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION Consultant (a) Purpose (b) Working Plan Given (c) Cost (d) Period (e) Excess (f) Airport Consultant and Construction Australia P/L National Aerodrome Plan-Study of Pilbara Zone of WA. To provide forecasts of demand for aviation services in the Pilbara Zone; and on basis of forecast provide options for providing aerodrome infrastructure. $34,400.00 June '83-Nov. '85. $3,223.00 Airport Consultant and Construction Australia P/L Development of Perth Airport Domestic Terminal Post 1985/86 To identify and compare the options available for the third stage of the Perth Airport re-development. $16,910.00 Jan. '85 Nil Nelson, English, Loxton &Andrews P/L Study of Essendon Airport Public Awareness Survey To survey the public attitude towards Essendon Airport and its continuing operation. $34,000.00 July '83-Ongoing Nil Macquarie University Written critique on value of time for airport users. To establish a comprehensive set of personal travel time values for all airport users and activities for use in economic analysis of the efficiency of airport planning options. $2,374.00 May '83-Aug. '83 $374.00 Neilson, Mc- Carthy, McFar- ling &Co P/L Review of Essendon Airport future role-Public Awareness Campaign To inform the public of the study and to provide up-to-date information on progress of study $28,080.00 21/2-21/10/84 Nil Dr. R. Harris, Flinders Medical Centre To address Departmental Middle Managers Course. Address topics ``People Management'' and ``From Operations to Administration''. $500.00 plus expenses 20/9/83 Nil Price Waterhouse Associates Pty Separate Airport and Airways Charges. Provide project oversight assistance in the development and testing of separate Airways/Airports charging arrangements. $114,100.00 June-Dec. '85 Nil. Coopers &Lybrand Services Corporate Information Needs Provide technical advice on methodology; undertake study to determine corporate information needs; identify inter-relationships between key information user areas; rank systems in order of economic returns; identify implementation strategies; develop cost/benefit analysis; prepare expression of interest prospective for suppliers. $195,000.00 12/9/83- 1/5/84. Nil Coopers &Lybrand Services Review of request for tenders for Department's General Computing Network (GCN). To review and evaluate request for tenders to ensure it is consistent with Departmental strategies, functionally sound, likely to provide a reasonable range of suppliers and consistent with Commonwealth ADP Purchasing Guidelines. $7,800.00 29/5- 8/6/85. Nil Mr R. Whitecross Discussions with NZ Civil Aviation Department on Provision of Air Traffic Services. Analyse the NZ proposal for provision of airways services and provide summaries of reports on similar studies undertaken in Australia for comparative purposes. $940.60 6-8/9/83. Nil Mr I. M. Leslie Public Accident Inquiry and Enforcement Procedures for Air Navigation Regulations. To analyse and report on Division comments on the report on Public Accident Inquiries and Enforcement Procedures for Air Navigation Regulations. $ 1,000.00 Aug.- Nov. 1983 Nil International Public Relations P/L Public Information Campaign-Melbourne and Essendon Airports To inform the public of the review of the future development options for Melbourne and Essendon Airports. $50,000.00 Feb. '84- ongoing. Nil Dougherty Communications Public Relations for Second Sydney Airport Site selection In relation to the site selection for Sydney's Second Airport; keep the public informed, minimise public confusion about the site selection program and ascertain the broad representative views of the public. $38,927.00 31.7.84- 30.6.85 Nil Dr R. Harris, Flinders Medical Centre To address Departmental Middle Managers Course Address topic ``People Management'' and ``From Operations to Administration'' $ 500.00 plus expenses 27.3.84 Nil International Public Relations P/L To address the Conference of Airport Directors. Address topic ``Public Relations/Marketing Techniques'' $ 750.00 4.6.84 Nil Dr Linda Hart Address Conference of Airport Directors Address topic ``Coping with Change'' $ 150.00 7.6.84 Nil Arthur Young and Company Address Conference of Airport Directors Address topic ``Financial Management'' $ 1,000.00 8.6.84 Nil Datec Pty. Ltd. ADP Training Program To assess the ADP training requirement for the Department and develop a comprehensive training program $11,742.00 10.4.- 18.6.84 Nil Coopers &Lybrand Services Project Management Advice for National Airport Authority (NAA) Task Force To report on-(1) the functions powers and duties appropriate to the NAA, (2) the financial provisions which might apply to the NAA, (3) the structure, establishment and staffing of NAA, (4) the legislation needed to establish the NAA and (5) the timetable for commencement of operation of NAA $74,113.60 Mar.-June '84 Nil Policy Research and Analysis Legal/Policy issues of NAA proposal To advise and report on legal/constitutional and policy aspects relating to the establishment of the NAA $ 5,492.30 Jan.-Mar. '84 Nil Price Waterhouse Urwick Organisational Recommendations for National Airport Authority To assist, advise and report to the NAA Task Force on matters relating to the organisation, structures and manpower planning requirements of the NAA $74,438.00 Sep.-Dec. '84 Nil Mr R. Whitecross &W. Bedsor Review of Civil Aviation Search and Rescue To head the Committee of Review into the arrangements for Search &Rescue for Civil Aviation $28,657.41 Dec. '83- May '84 Nil BBJ Computer Services Interim Supply System To develop a revised supply system $20,482.00 Mar '84- May '84 Nil Colliers International Property Consultants Airport Terminal rental policy To examine and report on options in implementing a revised rental policy which is either market or cost based and has application between all terminals, all sectors and all operators $ 999.00 Feb. '84- Mar. '84 Nil Prof. B. L. Cole Use of EFIS by persons with colour vision abnormalities To establish whether colour deficient flight crews have difficulties with colour cockpit instrumentation $47,234.00 April '84- ongoing Nil Arthur Young &Company Automatic Data Processing for Internal Audit To ensure that the applications developed by software contractors meet industry standards and to provide an auditability manual for the applications reviewed $20,250.00 Aug. '84- ongoing Nil Information Engineering Pty. Ltd. Future direction of the General Computing Network. To advise the department on the specification of its requirements for the integration of data dictionary, data base and fourth generation languages. $ 7,131.95 14-30.5.84 Nil Housely Communications P/L Preparation of a Request for Tender for General Computing Network Facilities. To provide expert advice in the development of Request for Tender. $ 7,370.00 10-25.5.84 Nil Prof. B. L. Cole Research into suitable spectacle design-Presbyopic Pilots. To answer specific questions on spectacle design for Presbyopic Pilots. $30,881.00 Oct. '84- ongoing Nil University of Queensland Research into Head Injuries and Oxygen Saturation. To investigate the potential ameliorative effects of known quantities of supplemental oxygen or arterial oxygen saturation in patients with head injuries. $21,736.25 June '84 ongoing Nil EPS Software Consultants Pty Ltd. Computer Modelling To undertake intensive use of software for airport financial modelling and sensitivity testing. $ 7,901.95 Aug. '84- June '85 Nil Coopers &Lybrand Services Pricing Policies Relevant to NAA proposal. To assist, advise and report to the NAA task force on pricing policy issues relevant to the NAA Proposal. $ 9,940.00 Sept. '84 Nil Price Waterhouse Specification of ADP System for Separate Airport/Airways Charges. To develop a detailed specification on ADP System for separate charges. $265,720.78 Sept. '85-Mar. 1985 $20,473.98 Nelson, English and Andrews P/L Development of Manual for Economic and Financial Project Evaluation. To develop a Manual which would be used by officers within the Department as a reference or guide in production of economic and financial project evaluations. $41,850.00 Nov. '84-Dec. '85 Nil W. D. Scott &Co P/L Staff selection interviews. To provide specialist advice in the selection of suitable staff in the computer field. $59,170.00 20/9-25/10/84 Nil Coopers &Lybrand Services Recording and control of departmental assets, plant and equipment. To develop a system for recording and control of departmental assets $89,000.00 Oct.-Dec. '84 Nil Dr R. Harris, Flinders Medical Centre To address departmental Middle Managers Course. Address topic ``Financial Management''. $600.00 plus expenses. 16/10/84 Nil N. Smith &Associates To address departmental Middle Managers Course. Address topic ``Creative Problem Solving''. $760.00 plus expenses. 18/10/84 Nil Macquarie University Develop a speech based hearing test for Air Traffic Controllers. To develop a speech based hearing test. Materials and associated test protocol for assessing the speech understanding performance of Air Traffic Controllers. $24,129.00 Jan. '85-Ongoing Nil Adecon Pty Ltd Review of Domestic Aviation Regulations. To prepare a report on the operation of market forces in both regulated and unregulated markets particularly with respect to the aviation industry. $3,600.00 Feb.-Sept. '85 Nil W. D. Scott &Co. Pty Ltd Provision of advice on Commercial Development of Airports To provide ad hoc commercial/marketing advice in a number of areas related to the commercial development of Commonwealth owned airports. $30,000.00 Dec. '84-ongoing Nil Dougherty Communications Assessment of departmental Communications and Information Plan To advise on the efficiency and effectiveness of the Department's Communication and Information Plan. $2,000.00 17/9-24/10/84 Nil SRI International Study of integration of Air Traffic Control &Flight Service To report and make recommendation on the integration of Air Traffic Control &Flight Service. $200,000.00 6/12/84-ongoing Nil Colliers International Property Consultants Formulation of Charging Policy for sites on Commonwealth Airports To develop a policy to be applied to rates charged for sites at Commonwealth Airports. $30,000.00 July '85-ongoing Nil Mathematica Products Group Pty Ltd Provision of Systems Development Methodology To provide formal methodology capable of providing support for all phases of the General Computing Network and ancillary projects. $96,100.00 26/2-13/8/85 Nil Dougherty Communications Review of Public Information Operators Evaluate the effectiveness of the Department's Public Information Operators generally and make recommendations for improvement. $4,200.00 22/10-23/11/84 Nil T. F. Hopkinson Review and Edit Departmental Property Manual Review and revise as necessary, the draft Airport Property, Policy &Procedures Manual. $6,000.00 Dec. '84-Mar. '85 Nil Coopers &Lybrand Services Review of Economic Regulatory Management for Domestic Aviation To undertake a review of the public perception of current domestic air service arrangements. $26,590.00 May-Oct. '85 $4,740.00 Dr R. Harris, Flinders Medical Centre To address departmental Middle Managers Course Address the topic ``People Management'' and ``From Operations to Administration''. $600.00 plus expenses 12/3/85 Nil N. Smith and Associates To address departmental Middle Managers Course Address the topic ``Creative Problem Solving''. $760.00 plus expenses 14/3/85 Nil School of Marketing, University of NSW To conduct commercial negotiations training for Central Office Staff Training by way of package. $4,194.30 9-10/5/85 Nil Mr K. Davis, Aust. Admin. Staff College To develop theme study for Senior Managers Course Provide initial guidance and materials for syndicate work. $5,600.00 plus expenses 20-31/5/85 Nil R. Entsch, East-West Airlines Address Airport Management Conference. Address topic ``Airline Operations''. $75.00 18/6/85 Nil Ms L. Teakle, Airport Retail Enterprises To address Airport Management Conference. Address topic ``Concessionaire Operations''. $150.00 18/6/85 Nil Mr I. Geddies Coopers &Lybrand Services Address Airport Management Conference Address topic ``The Marketing of Inwards Duty Free''. 225.00 18.6.85 Nil Dr L. Hort CCAE Address Airport Management Conference Address topic ``Coping with Change and Stress Management''. 250.00 20.6.85 Nil Price Waterhouse Associates Examine the limitations/implications of introduction of alternative regulatory arrangements Examine existing and planned airport infrastructure on major routes and identify limitations which would affect the requirements of additional and/or existing operators resulting from the introduction of possible alternative economic regulatory arrangements. 69,998.00 May-July '85 Nil Houseley Computer Undertake Computer Programming To provide contract programs as required. 30,000.00 Various Nil Coopers &Lybrand/W. D. Scott Aviation Cost allocation To complete an enhancement of a policy simulation model prepared for the Aviation Cost Recovery Inquiry. 26,000.00 July-Aug. '85 Nil Kinhill Stearns P/L Second Sydney Airport Site Selection To assist in site evaluation, environmental analysis and airport planning tasks for a Second Sydney Airport. 1,392,015.00 May '84- Ongoing 164,791.00 R. V. Goode Management Consultants P/L Management Improvement Plan To develop a detailed Management Strategy and a Management Improvement Plan for planning organising, co-ordinating and controlling the Department's Management improvement activities. 43,930.70 30.11.84-31.5.85 Nil Travers Morgan P/L Study of Comparative Airline Efficiency To undertake study of the relevant efficiencies of overseas and Australian domestic airlines. 52,000.00 May '85- Ongoing Nil Logica Pty Ltd Develop interface between separate airport/airways charging system and aircraft data base. Develop means of automatic up-date of separate charging systems using aircraft Certificate of Registration data base. 3,900.00 July '85- Ongoing 2,100.00 Coopers &Lybrand Services Organisation study of groundstaff at Perth &Jandakot airports To study the efficiency and cost effectiveness of Departmentally employed groundstaff. 10,370.00 Oct. 1984 Nil McGirr &Associates To produce computer programming specifications for information systems To interview staff to determine dimensions of programming specification. 19,500.00 Mar.-May '84 Nil McGirr &Associates Programs for information systems To write programs for information systems based on specification developed in previous consultancy. 106,899.00 April-Sept. '85 Nil Pak Boy &Kneebone Pty Ltd National Aerodrome Plan Study (extension) North Coast Zone N.S.W. To provide a broad strategic framework to identify and guide the development of aerodromes and aerodrome facilities. 5,500.00 12-28.3.84 Nil Coopers &Lybrand Duty Free Concession, Audit of Records To conduct a review of accounting systems of concessionaires to record sales at Sydney &Melbourne airports. 5,000.00 4.8.83-30.9.83 Nil Beca Orr Pty Ltd and Transplan General Aviation Study Sydney Region To determine the anticipated increase in GA traffic and subsequent facilities required to meet this increase. 86,000.00 Jan. 84- Ongoing Nil Kaye Raymond &Associates Seminar on Equal Employment Opportunities Provide base information for Assertion Training Courses for Women 916.00 10.5.85 Nil Ray Franzi Pty Ltd Communications Satellite Project To examine engineering specifications of footings used in ground stations for the satellite project. 3,000.00 19-26.4.85 Nil T. Robinson Textbook on gas turbine power plants To write a textbook on gas turbine power plants and their maintenance on aircraft. 46,120.20 June 1985-ongoing Nil Beca Orr P/L, Ibis Corporate Services &Trans- plan Inc. Examination for increasing Commonwealth revenue at airports Examine the potential for increasing revenue from non-aeronautical sources. 238,000.00 May 1984-ongoing Nil Nelson, English Hoxton &Andrews P/L Development of Econometric Performance Model To examine the possibility of developing an Econometric Performance Model. 10,000.00 April 1983-May 1984 Nil INDEPENDENT AIR FARES COMMITTEE Price Waterhouse Associates Pty Provision of specialist accounting advice on airline profitability To prepare a research report and recommended guidelines for the Independent Air Fares Committee (IAFC) on the profit allowance to be included in the determination of economy air fares for the Ansett group of airlines and TAA, having regard to the requirements of sub-section 15(11) of the IAFC Act. Also to attend meetings with the airlines concerned and to evaluate the airlines' submissions on the research report. $19,100 April '83 March '85 (Several inter-related consultancies over period) Nil Price Waterhouse Associates Pty Provision of specialist advice to the IAFC To prepare papers on several accounting issues related to the assessment of air fare applications under Sections 16 and 17 of the IAFC Act. (i) $350 (ii) $250 (i) June '83 (ii) Sept '83 Nil Nil Price Waterhouse Associates Pty Provision of specialist accounting advice to the IAFC To prepare papers on the applications of various guidelines and principles, outlined in the 1982 Cost Allocation Review Report, relating to the treatment of airline costs for air fare setting purposes. (i) $1,000 (ii) $600 (iii) $600 (i) August/ Sept '83 (ii) June/ July '84 (iii) June/ July '84 Nil Nil Nil Touche Ross Services Pty Provision of specialist advice on accounting issues associated with the 1983/84 Cost Allocation Review. To prepare a paper for the IAFC on the basis for determining asset values for air fare setting purposes. $1,295 Nov '83/ Jan '84 $295 Price Waterhouse Associates Pty Provision of specialist advice on accounting for leases. To prepare a paper for and hold discussions with the IAFC on the treatment of airline assets subject to lease financing. (i) $300 (ii) $3,000 (i) Aug '84 (ii) Nov '84 Feb '85 Nil Price Waterhouse Associates Pty Preparation of public discussion papers on ``Treatment of Leased Assets'' and ``Use of contemporary valuation of assets''. To prepare, following discussions with the IAFC, separate papers relating to the treatment of the abovementioned matters for air fare setting purposes, and to present evidence at relevant public hearings conducted by the Committee. $20,000 (to date) Feb '85-continuing) Not Applicable (Question No. 1276) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 23 May 1985: (1) Have officials from his Department recently undertaken a review of the remote air services subsidy scheme. (2) Will he table the report in the House. (3) Is it a fact that the review recommends (a) a change to the present scheme and (b) the introduction of a fee for the users of the service provided by Augusta Airways and other operators. (4) What is the Government's policy on the remote air services subsidy scheme. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) A review of Commonwealth aviation related subsidies was undertaken for the use of the Government in the course of its 1985-86 Budget deliberations and I do not, therefore, propose to table a report in the House. (3) (a) and (b) Full details of the remote air service subsidies for 1985-86 were announced in the Budget. The application of the minimum business guarantee on remote air services operated by Augusta Airways was examined separately. While the Government believes it is preferable that users of these services support them on a regular basis, it was decided not to introduce this fee on the Channel Country service operated by Augusta Airways. In making this decision the special characteristics of the route were taken into consideration. (4) Provision of assistance under the Remote Air Service Subsidy Scheme recognises the Government's concern to maintain regular air services to remote areas of Australia which are dependent on aviation for many services taken for granted elsewhere. These subsidies assist in ensuring regular delivery of such items as fresh food, educational needs, medical supplies and general freight, and transport of passengers. (Question No. 1448) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What advertising campaigns and research studies have been conducted or commissioned by the Minister's Department since March 1983. (2) Did any other Government agencies advise or co-ordinate any of these campaigns or research studies. (3) If an advertising agency or market research firm was used (a) what was its name and (b) what amount was it paid. (4) What was (a) the cost and (b) in the case of advertising campaigns, the split between agency fees and actual campaign costs for each campaign or study. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) March 1983-June 1984 Advertising Campaigns: Introduction of Family Income Supplement 1983 Budget changes. Market Research: Market testing of assets test forms and publicity material for specific target groups. July 1984 to June 1985. Advertising Campaigns: May 1985 pension and benefit rate changes; Introduction of special `first point of contact' leaflet ``Perhaps Social Security can help you . . .''. Introduction of the income and assets test; Conversion of payments to direct deposit. Market Research: To identify the most efficient means of getting information to young people and to identify the type of information most easily understood by young clients; To assess client reaction to change to direct deposit; To assess people's knowledge levels of unemployment benefit. (2) Yes. The Australian Government Advertising Agency and the Information Co-ordination Branch, Advertising Service of the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism. (3) (a) Advertising: $ LINTAS... 11,023.00 Creative Oasis 7,829.00 (b) Market Research: Lenehan, Lynton &Bloom... 12,700.00 INVIEW... 64,200.00 Australia Market Research Pty Ltd.... 50,000.00 The Marketing Centre... 10,175.00 (4) (a) Advertising: Only one campaign was handled by an agency- Introduction of Family Income Supplement... 560,383.00 The following advertising was placed by the Department- $ Budget changes 1983... 6,500.00 May 1985 pension and benefit rate changes... 31,189.00 Introduction of special `first point of contact' leaflet ``Perhaps Social Security can help you . . .''... 45,000.00 Introduction of the income and assets test... 104,995.00 Conversion to direct deposit... 70,579.00 Market Research: $ Lenehan, Lynton &Bloom... 12,700.00 INVIEW... 64,200.00 Australia Market Research Pty Ltd... 50,000.00 The Marketing Centre... 10,175.00 (b) Introduction of Family Income Supplement: agency fee... 11,023.00 campaign cost... 549,360.00 Total... 560,383.00 Introduction of income and assets test: $ agency fee... 7,829.00 campaign not proceeded with when the Gruen Committee was established... Total... 7,829.00 (Question No. 1531) Mr Maher asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: What amount was expended by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on travel entitlements for homosexual partners of staff in 1984-1985. Mr Duffy —Based on information provided by the ABC, the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: ABC staff who are in a de facto relationship and apply for travel entitlements for their partner are required to sign a statutory declaration concerning the relationship; the declaration does not indicate whether the partner is male or female. The ABC considers that any requirement to this effect would be an invasion of privacy. The ABC therefore has no formal records of travel entitlements to de facto spouses, broken down on the basis of sex, and is therefore unable to provide detailed information as requested. Nevertheless, from informal inquiries it appears that there have been only two claims arising from persons in homosexual de facto relationships since the entitlement was recognised. No fares were involved in either case. One case involved a living allowance. The other case involved an entitlement to an allowance for meals and incidentals. The total cost to date appears to have been $1,040.50 paid as living allowances. (Question No. 1626) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 10 September 1985: What does Trans Australia Airlines intend to do with its DC9 aircraft when B737 aircraft purchased to replace them are delivered. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: TAA has advised that, following acquisition of the Boeing 737-300 aircraft, it intends to dispose of five DC9's, three Boeing 727-200's and one Airbus. This plan will be contingent upon capacity determination coupled with passenger-cargo demand at that time. TAA further advised that two DC9's are scheduled for disposal during 1986. (Question No. 1627) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 10 September 1985: (1) Which airports in Australia (a) have and (b) use, parallel runways. (2) Why were parallel runways constructed and for what purpose are they used. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Australian civil airports which have parallel runway facilities are the General Aviation airports at: (i) Archerfield, Queensland (ii) Bankstown, New South Wales (iii) Moorabbin, Victoria (iv) Parafield, South Australia (b) The parallel runways at these airports are all in regular operational use. (2) The parallel runways were constructed to increase the aircraft traffic handling capacity of the respective airports. The additional capacity is achieved by simultaneous operation of aircraft in contrarotating circuits from the two runways. (Question No. 1657) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 11 September 1985: (1) What are the (a) names of applicants and (b) dates of application for international passenger charters lodged since March 1983. (2) Which applications have been determined and why has no decision been made on the outstanding applications. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The table below provides details of major passenger applications lodged since March 1983, together with the Government's response to each application. In addition, approval has been given to approximately 250 applications for the operation of small passenger charters mainly into and out of points in Northern Australia. These applications involved small aircraft generally carrying 2 to 10 passengers, usually operating to destinations in Papua New Guinea, Indonesia and the South Pacific. MAJOR PASSENGER CHARTER PROPOSALS MARCH 1983-SEPTEMBER 1985 Date of Appli- cation Charterer Operator Proposed Route, Timing, Aircraft, Passengers (where indicated) Comment/ approved 1/3/83 PNG Softball Club Air Niugini Port Moresby/Cairns/Port Moresby March/April 1983, F28 60 passengers Affinity Group Charter. Approved 5/3/83 Bougainville Copper Air Niugini Port Moresby/Kiunga/Townsville return (twice) April 1983 F28 60 passengers. Two own use charters. Carrying schoolchildren of Bougainville Copper workers. Approved 4/5/83 Lions Club of Waigani Air Niugini Port Moresby/Darwin/Port Moresby. June 1983, F28 60 passengers. Affinity Group Charter. Approved 20/6/83 Bougainville Copper Air Niugini Port Moresby/Kiunga/Townsville return. July 1983 F28 60 passengers. Own use charters. Uplift of school-children Approved. 1/8/83 Bougainville Copper Air Niugini Port Moresby/Townsville/Kiunga/Port Moresby. September 1983. F28. 60 passengers. Own use Charters. Uplift of school-children Approved. 25/8/83 Darwin Squash Club Air Niugini Port Moresby/Darwin/Port Moresby (twice). September 1983. F28. 60 passengers. Affinity Group Charter. Approved. 1/9/83 PNG Squash Team Air Niugini Port Moresby/Cairns/Port Moresby September 1983. Two F28's. 60 passengers in each. Affinity Group Charter. Approved. 5/9/83 Waigani Lions Club Air Niugini Port Moresby/Cairns/Ingham/Cairns/Port Moresby. September 1983. F28. 60 passengers. Affinity Group Charter. Approved. 17/10/83 Hanseatic Tours Lufthansa Round the World ex-Frankfurt, November 1983. B707. 86 passengers. Inclusive Tour Charter. Approved. 6/12/83 Australian Union of Students MAS Kuala Lumpur/Australia/Kuala Lumpur, December 1983/January 1984 B747. 398 passengers. 2 charters proposed. 1 return flight operated. 14/11/83 Darwin Squash Club Air Niugini Port Moresby/Darwin/Port Moresby (twice). December 1983/January 1984. F28, 60 passengers. Affinity Group Charter. Approved. 9/12/83 BHP Air Niugini Cairns/Daru/Kiunga/Tabubil/Daru/Cairns December 1983. F27, 30 passengers. Own use charter. Approved. 6/12/83 United Credit Union Sempati Air Transport Denpasar/Christmas Is/Denpasar (twice). December 1983. F27, 40 passengers. Two Affinity Group Charters. Approved. 29/12/83 Bougainville Copper Air Niugini Port Moresby/Kiunga/Townsville/Kiunga January 1984. F28, 60 passengers. Own use charters. Uplift of schoolchidren. Approved. 20/6/83 International Service Association Air Mauritius Two charters Mauritius/Perth/Mauritius December 1983/January 1984. B707, 156 passenger capacity. Affinity Group Charter. Approved. 20/10/83 Blue Army of Our Lady of Fatima Skystar International Round the world ex-US, December 1983. B707, 188 passengers. Affinity Group Inclusive Tour. Cancelled by Skystar before complete application received. 14/10/83 Ambassadair Travel Club, Indiana US American Trans Air Inc Indianapolis/South Pacific points/Sydney/return. December 1983. B707, 183 passengers. Inclusive Tour. Approved. 10/2/84 Aboriginal Society Air Niugini Port Moresby/Cairns/Port Moresby (twice). February 1984. F27, 40 passengers. Affinity Group Charter. Approved. 14/11/83 Ports of Call Travel Club, Denver, US Ports of Call Denver/South Pacific points/Sydney/return March 1984. B707, 185 passengers. Two inclusive Tour Charters. Approved. 17/11/83 Bank Leu Swissair Round the World ex-Zurich, February 1984. DC10, 160 passengers. Inclusive Tour Charter. Approved. 14/11/83 London Philharmonic Orchestra Jet Charter Service Round the World ex-London, February/March 1984, 150 passengers. Cancelled by Jet Charter before complete application received. 14/11/83 Finnair Finnair Round the World ex-Finland, February/March 1984. DC8. Inclusive Tour. Operator decided against including Australian points. 20/3/84 Henderson Group Travel Air Niugini Port Moresby/Darwin/Port Moresby (twice). April 1984. F28. 60 passengers. Approved. 22/3/84 Bougainville Copper Air Niugini Port Moresby/Townsville/Kiunga/Townsville/Port Moresby. April 1984. F28, 58 passengers. Own use charters. Uplift schoolchildren. Approved. 20/3/84 Lions Club of Waigani Air Niugini Port Moresby/Darwin/Port Moresby (twice). April 1984. F28, 60 passengers. Affinity Group Charter. Approved. 4/6/84 Bougainville Copper Air Niugini Port Moresby/Kiunga/Townsville/Port Moresby. July 1984. F28, 58 passengers. Own use charter. (Schoolchildren). Approved. . . Tel Aviv Philharmonic Orchestra Jet Charter Service Luton-Miami via Australia, July 1984. B707, 188 passengers. Cancelled by Jet Charter before complete application received. 30/6/84 Antarctica Airways Aero Filipinas Program of charters to South America with weekly or monthly flights utilising a B707 under a 12 month contract between Antarctica Airways and Aero Filipinas to commence after August 1984. Proposal was approved in principle. Operator withdrew before services commenced. 15/6/84 Iwasaki Industrial Co. Japan Airlines Kagoshima/Guam/Brisbane/Guam/Tokyo. September 1984. DC8, 164 passengers. Own use Charter. Approved. 15/6/84 Iwasaki Industrial Co. Japan Airlines Fukuoka/Guam/Sydney/Guam/Kagoshima. September 1984. DC8, 164 passengers. Own use Charter. Approved. 23/8/84 Bougainville Copper Air Niugini Port Moresby/Kiunga/Townsville/Port Moresby. October 1984. F28, 58 passengers. Own use charter. Approved. 8/10/84 Airline Touring Services Air France Paris/Sydney/Paris. December 1984. Concorde, 100 passengers. Special Event Charter. Approved. Application subsequently cancelled. 19/9/84 Indian Ocean Festival Committee Air Mauritius Two charters Mauritius/Perth/Mauritius. November/December 1984. B707, 156 passenger capacity. Charter approved but subsequently cancelled. 19/9/84 Various Mauritian Community Groups Air Mauritius Four charters Mauritius/Perth/Mauritius during the period November 1984-December 1985. B707, 156 passenger capacity. Affinity Group Charters. Approved. 5/11/84 Lufthansa Lufthansa Round the world charter originating/terminating in Frankfurt and calling at Sydney from 9-12 November 1984. B707, 80 passengers. Inclusive Tour Charter. Approved. 5/11/84 Airtours Germany Lufthansa Round the world charter originating/terminating in Frankfurt and calling at Sydney from 3-6 December 1984. B707, 78 passengers. Inclusive Tour Charter. Approved. 5/11/84 American Express International Lufthansa Round the world charter originating/terminating in Frankfurt and calling at Sydney from 22-25 December 1984. B707, 66 passengers. Inclusive Tour Charter. Approved. 16/7/84 Cunard Lines Ltd. British Airways London/Sydney/London via Perth. Passengers travelling as part of a round-the-world fly-cruise package. Inbound passengers flying to Sydney to join QEII and outbound passengers disembarking in Sydney to fly to London. February 1985. 70 passengers. Special Event Charter. Approved. 25/6/84 Scandinavia Australia-NZ Friendship Unions/Skyways Tours Sterling Airways Copenhagen Copenhagen/Cairns/Copenhagen November 1984-April 1985. DC10, 252 passengers. 9 Affinity Group Inclusive Tour Charters. Approved. Operator withdrew indicating deferral until late 1985. 24/1/85 Hapag Lloyd Lufthansa 300 passengers from Frankfurt to Sydney to join cruise ship MS Europe. Return flight carried passengers leaving ship in Sydney back to Frankfurt 26-28 February 1985. B747. Approved as a ``special event'' charter. 16/11/84 P. Lawson, Travel Air Canada Round the world inclusive tour chart originating/terminating in Toronto. Calling at Sydney from 28-31 January 1985. B747, 232 passengers. Inclusive Tour Charter. Approved. 17/1/85 Ports of Call, Denver, US Ports of Call Denver/points in South Pacific/Sydney/return. March 1985. B707, 185 Two Inclusive Tours. Approved. 4/10/84 Skyways Tours Association Not provided Copenhagen/Cairns/Copenhagen, June 1985. Type of aircraft, number of passengers not advised. Application rejected on the grounds that Skyways Tours had not received necessary travel agent registration from Queensland authorities. Application would be considered further when such registration granted. 10/7/84 Kuoni Travel Zurich/Sydney Swissair (a) Zurich-Perth/Sydney-Zurich (b) Perth/Sydney round-the-world charter including US, Mexico, South America, Kenya and Maldives. Both in August/September 1985. (RTW charter was to be operated whilst Zurich origin passengers undertook tour in Australia). Approved in principle. However operator subsequently withdrew application. 25/2/85 Ports of Call, Denver, US Ports of Call Denver/Fiji/Cairns/Port Moresby return September 1985. B707, 185 passengers. One Inclusive Tour. Approved. Operator subsequently advised that charter would not proceed. 15/2/85 All Nippon All Nippon Program of five charters Japan-Cairns-Brisbane-Japan September 1985-March 1986 Inclusive Tour Charter. Proposal approved in respect of Cairns, but not Brisbane. Program cancelled due to rejection by Japanese authorities. 27/3/85 East West Hawaiian Air Four applications to operate inclusive tour charters, spread over three years, commencing in October 1985, between Perth and Guam; Perth and Amsterdam; Brisbane/Cairns and Amsterdam. Initially services would utilise DC8 aircraft (259 passenger capacity) increasing to DC10 (329 passenger capacity). The applications are currently being considered by the Department of Aviation. 20/3/85 Papua New Guinea Association, Darwin Ansett WA Notice of intention to operate affinity group charter between Darwin/Port Moresby/Darwin, possibly in December 1985. F28, 55 passengers. 20/6/85 Hemphill/Harris Travel Corporation American Trans Air Round-the-world charter originating Los Angeles and terminating in New York, with 3-day stopover in Sydney, 25-28 September 1985. Lockheed 1011, 96 passengers. Approved. 3/6/85 Air Caledonie Air Caledonie Inclusive tour Noumea/Norfolk Is./Noumea. 7-9 June 1985. DH6. 20 passengers. Approved. 28/6/85 West Australian Research Academy Wakayama. All Nippon Airways Affinity group charter from Nagoya, Japan to Perth, 24-28 September 1985. B747, 450 passengers. Approved. 25/6/85 Japan Airlines Japan Airlines Three inclusive tour charters Fukuoka/Cairns/Brisbane/Fukouka October 1985. DC8, 164 passengers. Approved in respect of Cairns, but not Brisbane. 25/6/85 Japan Airlines Japan Airlines Three inclusive tour charters Fukouka/Cairns/Fukouka November 1985. DC8, 164 passengers. Approved. 16/7/85 George Norris Marketing Pty Ltd British Airways Own use charter London/Melbourne/London to coincide with Victorian sequicentenary celebrations. Passengers on incentive program with fare being paid for by their company. October 1985. Concorde. 100 passengers. Application subsequently cancelled. 2/7/85 Dept. of Education Sunbird Airlines Own use charter Horn Is./Daru/Horn Is. (twice) carrying school children to Daru for a sports weekend. August 1985. 1 PA 31 Navajo, 2 BN-2 Islanders, 56 passengers. Approved. 18/7/85 Air Caledonie Air Caledonie Charter between Noumea/Norfolk Is./Noumea, 15-18 August 1985. DHC-6 (Twin Other). 22 passengers. Approved. 2/8/85 Lan Chile Lan Chile Round-the-world charter originating and terminating in Santiago with stopovers in Sydney and Melbourne during the period 15-18 October 1985. 1 B707, 84 passengers. Approved. 20/8/85 Victorian Mauritian Association Air Mauritius Two return affinity group Charters Mauritius/Perth/Mauritius. December 1985/January 1986, B707. Approved. 20/8/85 International Service Association Air Mauritius Two return affinity group Charters Mauritius/Perth Mauritius. December 1985/January 1986, B707. Approved. 2/9/85 Lions Club Groups TAA Two return affinity group charters Cairns/Port Moresby/Cairns. September 1985 on behalf of Lions Club. DC9, 93 pax. Approved. . . Lan Chile Operation of two DC10 services Papeete/Sydney return in November and December 1985. Both services would originate and terminate in Santiago. Being considered. 13/9/85 Mount Cook Line Ports of Call Denver/points in South Pacific/Sydney/return. January 1986. B707, 185 or 168 pax (depending on type of B707 used). Two inclusive tour charters. Approved. (Question No. 1678) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 12 September 1985: (1) Is he able to say (a) which domestic airline companies employ flight attendants on passenger aircraft, (b) how many attendants each of those companies roster on each type of aircraft and (c) which companies have a structured flight attendant system; if so, what are the features of these structures. (2) Do safety regulations contain requirement for the employment of flight attendants. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) The following domestic airline companies operating under the provisions of an airline licence employ flight attendants on passenger aircraft: Trans Australia Airlines Ansett Transport Industries, including subsidiary companies East West Airlines Ltd Air Queensland (b) The number of cabin attendants rostered in each type of aircraft, by each company, is: CABIN ATTENDANTS BY COMPANY AND AIRCRAFT TYPE Airline Aircraft Cabin staff TAA F27 DC9 B727 A300 2 4-1 Purser and 3 Attendants 6-1 Purser &5 Attendants 12-2 Purser &10 Attendants Ansett (including F27 2 Air NSW F28 2 Airlines of SA BAe146 3-1 Purser and 2 Attendants Ansett WA B737 4-1 Purser and 3 Attendants Ansett NT) B727 6-1 Purser and 5 Attendants B767 10-1 Purser and 9 Attendants East West Airlines F27 F28 2 Attendants 2 Attendants Air Queensland DC3 F27 1 Attendant 2 Attendants (c) The following companies have structured cabin attendant systems: Trans Australia Airlines Ansettt Transport Industries East West Airlines Air Queensland These structures are generally based on a hierarchical system eg Purser, Flight Attendant. (2) Yes. Air Navigation Order 20.16.3 details the minimum requirements for the number of cabin attendants on passenger aircraft. (Question No. 1833) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 13 September 1985: (1) Did the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission recommend or permit any sanctions or penalties to be applied against airport workers in southern Australia who recently refused to clear runways. (2) If so, what were they, and what action did he or his Department take in relation to them. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. The workers involved ceased their industrial action and the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission was notified that their Association would pursue the claims through the normal conciliation and arbitration process. (2) No further action was necessary. (Question No. 1892) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1985: Have payments been made by his Department and authorities under his control to the Greek-Australian Welfare Association of New South Wales; if so, what (a) amounts have been paid, (b) is the basis of the payments, and (c) was the purpose of the payments. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Payments have been made by my Department to the Greek-Australian Welfare Workers' Association of New South Wales. (a) $95,000 has been paid. (b) Payment of $60,000 was provided for in the 1984-85 Budget Estimates, and an additional payment of $35,000 was provided for in the 1984-85 Additional Estimates. (c) The purpose of the payments was to establish and fund a Secretariat in the Greek-Australian Welfare Workers Association of NSW to co-ordinate and systematise claims by certain clients affected by the so-called Social Security Conspiracy Case in 1978. The Government set up the Commission of Inquiry under the Chairmanship of Dame Roma Mitchell to consider compensation claims by clients who were arrested and charged. The Secretariat is dealing with compensation claims by clients who were never arrested or charged but who were affected in other ways. (Question No. 1902) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Se- curity, upon notice, on 19 September 1985. (1) How many employees of his Department and authorities under his control are described as screen based staff. (2) Does his Department or any authority under his control conduct eye tests on screen based staff; if so, what was the (a) cost and (b) number of eye tests in 1984-85. (3) What is the estimated cost of eye tests in 1985-86. (4) Why are eye tests conducted. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Approximately 9000. (2) Yes (a) $62,458.25; (b) 7,185. (3) $70,000. (4) Eye tests are conducted in accordance with (i) the Public Service Board advice relating to Eyesight Testing of staff operating screen based equipment and (ii) Clause 10 of the Department of Social Security (introduction of Stratplan and Associated ADP Development) Agreement 1984 which was certified under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. (Question No. 1907) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1985: (1) Has his Department or any authority under his control undertaken any (a) market research projects or (b) community opinion polls in 1984-85; if so, (i) what were the objectives of the projects, (ii) who undertook the projects, (iii) what was the cost of each project, and (iv) will he make copies of the results available. (2) Is it anticipated that (a) market research or (b) community opinion polling will be undertaken in 1985-86; if so, what will be the (i) subject and (ii) estimated cost of any projects. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Yes. (i) To identify the most efficient means of getting information to young people and to identify the type of information most easily understood by young clients. To assess client reaction to change to direct deposit. To assess people's knowledge levels of unemployment benefit. (ii) Australia Market Research Pty Ltd INVIEW. The Marketing Centre Pty Ltd. (iii) $50,000; $64,200; $10,175: (iv) Yes. (b) No. (2) (a) Yes. (i) and (ii) Several possibilities are being investigated. (b) No. (Question No. 1909) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1985: (1) How many envelopes were used by his Department and authorities under his control to distribute benefits to clients in 1984-85. (2) Will the implementation of a direct credit system reduce the number of envelopes used; if so, by what amount. (3) What was the (a) cost and (b) number of envelopes purchased for (i) 1984-85 and (ii) 1985-86 (estimated). (4) Have any standing orders for envelopes been cancelled; if so, has any penalty been paid for the cancellation of the orders. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) 48,779,000, approximately. (2) Yes there will be a reduction in envelopes in relation to pensions and allowances because cheques will no longer be posted to individuals who have opted for the direct credit method of payment. As at the end of August 1985 the number of pensions and allowances paid by direct credit was 87% and 90% respectively. The amount of reduction in general as a result of Direct Credits will not be known in detail until useage patterns become clearer. No reduction in envelopes is expected to occur for unemployment benefit where there is a requirement for fortnightly advices to continue to be sent to beneficiaries. (3) (a) (i) $524,000; (ii) $413,000 (b) (i) Approx. 52,000,000; (ii) Approx. 40,100,000 (4) No orders were cancelled. (Question No. 1910) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1985: (1) What will be the cost saving to his Department and authorities under his control in the printing of cheques as a result of the introduction of the direct credit system. (2) What stocks of pre-printed cheques are held. (3) How long will it take to use the stocks of pre-printed cheques at the projected rate of usage following the introduction of the direct credit system. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) approximately $88,600 in 1985-86 (2) approximately 25,000,000 (3) Departmental policy is to maintain a minimum level of cheques on hand to last approximately 9 months. Because of the success of implementation of direct deposits as the prime mode of payment it is expected that stocks on hand in some states will last some 2 to 3 years. (Question No. 1911) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1985: (1) What was the cost of postage in his Department and authorities under his control in 1984-85. (2) What amount of the postage was directly related to the distribution of benefits to clients. (3) How many items were posted. (4) What is the estimated cost of postage for 1985-86. (5) What reduction in cost is anticipated as a result of the introduction of the direct credit system. (6) How many individual transactions distributing benefits to clients will be replaced in a full year by the direct credit system. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) $28,665,942. (2) The amount of postage directly attributable to the distribution of benefits to clients is not available, however the major part of postage for this Department would be for that purpose. (3) This information is not available. (4) $21,921,000. (5) The estimated reduction in cost of postage in a full year as a result of the introduction of the direct credit system will be approximately $13.0m. (6) As a result of the introduction of the direct credit system of payment, it will no longer be necessary to post approximately 40 million cheques to pensioners and recipients of family allowances. Under the previous payment system for unemployment beneficiaries cheques were despatched each fortnight together with an Application for Continuation of Unemployment Benefit form for the next fortnight's Benefit. While the direct credits system has replaced the need to despatch cheques it is still necessary to send out these forms each fortnight. (Question No. 1915) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1985: (1) What are the requirements for the granting of (a) travelling and (b) meal allowance paid to employees of his Department and authorities under his control. 2. What was the cost of each of these allowances in (i) 1984-85 and (ii) 1985-86 (estimated). Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Requirements for the granting of travelling and meal allowances are laid down in Public Service Board Determination 1983/10 of 30 May 1983. Specifically: (a) Travelling allowance is payable to staff absent from their headquarters while travelling on duty, travelling to take up duty at a new locality or performing duty away from headquarters. (b) Meal allowances are payable to officers who are required to work outside normal hours of duty when it is not possible to return to their homes or lodgings for a meal during the authorised meal break. (2) (i) In 1984-85 the cost of travelling allowances was $6,487,166 and meal allowances, $592,793. (ii) In 1985-86 the estimated cost for travelling allowances is $7,068,000 and meal allowances, $667,000. (Question No. 2062) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 9 October 1985: (1) What amounts have been paid to Mr Phillip Adams and Mr Rod Cameron, their companies, or principals of their companies, for services rendered to the Minister's Department or authorities under the Minister's control and for what purposes in each case. (2) What amounts have been paid to each of these people or companies for (a) travel allowance, (b) air fares, (c) accommodation costs, (d) hire car expenses and (e) any other expenses incurred. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) $34,713.96 paid to Monahan, Dayman, Adams Ltd for radio advertisements for the implementation of the Assets Test. (2) (a) Nil. (b) Nil. (c) Nil. (d) Nil. (e) $28.00 for out of pocket expenses (trunk calls). (Question No. 2209) Mr Sharp asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 15 October 1985: (1) Is the Government considering upgrading the Princes Highway to a standard required to handle an increase in the volume of traffic expected to be generated with the Navy's proposed move of some of its major facilities at Sydney to Jervis Bay. (2) Is the Government considering (a) upgrading Trunk Road 92 to ensure an additional trafficable access will be created to the South Coast and the South East of NSW and (b) extending the Illawarra railway line from Bomaderry to Jervis Bay or areas further South. (3) Does the Minister recognise there is a need to improve access and communications in the Shoalhaven region to meet the needs of future increases in naval personnel. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (2) and (3) On 3 October 1985 I announced a study of a proposal to move some naval facilities from Sydney, focussing on the scope for establishing a base at Jervis Bay. The Study will take account of the need for adequate transportation and communications within the Shoalhaven region and beyond. Should the Government decide that the relocation proposal be further developed, any upgrading of elements of the existing infrastructure would be the subject of consultation with the NSW Government and the Local Governments concerned. (Question No. 2222) Mr Reith asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 16 October 1985: (1) Has the Government allocated funds for the establishment of a community health service in the City of Frankston, Victoria; if so, (a) to whom have the funds been allocated, (b) what funds have been allocated, (c) what funds were disbursed and for what purpose, as at October 1985. (2) If no funds have yet been disbursed, when will funds be disbursed and what will be the level of the initial disbursement. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The provision and financing of State-based health and health-related welfare services are, primarily, the responsibility of State Governments. The Commonwealth has, however, provided significant levels of funding to the States for community health services through general revenue grants. In addition, the Commonwealth has provided funds through special purpose grants, as part of the Medicare Agreements with the States, specifically for new or expanded community health services. However, the Commonwealth has not so far sought to have any detailed co-ordinating or monitoring role in community health and therefore the allocation of these funds to individual services has been left entirely to the States. Information obtained from the Victorian Department of Health indicates that an allocation of $175,000 was made for a new community health centre in Frankston from funds provided to Victoria under the Medicare Agreement. These funds will provide for five staff, plus over-heads. (Question No. 374) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 22 March 1985: (1) What (a) statutory authorities and (b) advisory panels or councils come within the Minister's jurisdiction and what is the (i) name, (ii) date and period of appointment of each member. (2) What (a) remuneration and (b) travelling allowance, is payable for each position. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2)-(a) Statutory Authority-Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs (AIMA); (b) Advisory Bodies-Council of Overseas Professional Qualifications (COPQ); National Population Council (NPC); Immigration Review Panel (IRP). STATUTORY AUTHORITY Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Members Date and period of appointment Remuneration Travelling allowance per overnight stay Capital city Non-capital city $ $ $ David John Penman (Chairman)... 1.7.85 for 2 years 16,433 p.a....125 95 Basil Taliangis... 1.7.85 for 4 years 6,609 125 95 Vasiliki Nihas... 1.7.85 for 4 years 6,609 125 95 Michael Liffman... 1.7.85 for 4 years 6,609 125 95 Clare Dunne... 1.7.85 for 4 years 6,609 125 95 Alan Matheson... 1.7.85 for 4 years 6,609 125 95 Eric Paul Willmot... 1.7.85 for 2 years 6,609 125 95 Albert Jamie Grassby... 1.7.85 for 2 years 6,609 125 95 Katie Marie Young... 1.7.85 for 2 years 6,609 125 95 Ann Elizabeth Emamy... 1.7.85 for 2 years 6,609 125 95 Note: All the above have been appointed as part-time members of the Council. Two other persons are members of the Council of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs ex officio: the Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr Bill McKinnon; and the Director of the Institute, Mr Sheldrake. Neither receive remuneration or allowances as members of Council. ADVISORY BODIES Council of Overseas Professional Qualifications (COPQ) Prof. K. C. Westfold (Chairman)-July 1985 to June 1987 Prof. Emeritus E. G. Saint, CMG-July 1984 to June 1987 Dott P. Totaro-July 1984 to June 1987 Mr Warner Kuttner-July 1984 to June 1987 Mrs S. Rodojanovic-July 1984 to June 1987 Ms L. Rodopoulos-July 1984 to June 1987 Mr J. McAuliffe-July 1984 to June 1987 Mr Edward Benjamin-February 1985 to 18 June 1987 Mr T. R. Rodgers-19 February 1985-ex officio Expert Panel in Accountancy Dr D. J. H. Watson, M.P.-March 1983 Mr P. W. Osborne-August 1982 Mr I. A. A. Vassie, A.M.-August 1977 Dr Frank L. Clarke-March 1983 Mr J. R. Salmon-August 1977 Expert Panel in Architecture Mr Gavin Walkley; C.B.E., (Chairman)-August 1972; Mr D. C. Bailey-May 1974; Mr J. Davidson-August 1978; Prof. G. E. Roberts-September 1977; Prof. B. S. Saini-April 1976. Expert Panel in Computing Dr C. Bellamy (Chairman)-January 1982; Prof. M. W. Allen-January 1982; Mr H. Brzezinski-January 1982; Mr D. Langdon-January 1982; Prof. R. S. Northcote-January 1982; Dr M. White-January 1982. Expert Panel in Dietetics Miss J. F. Rogers, A.M. (Chairman)-August 1979; Ms D. Flint-Rechter-January 1977; Miss E. Owles-September 1979; Prof. A. Truswell-August 1979; Prof. Wahlqvist-August 1979. Expert Panel in General Academic Qualifications Prof. K. C. Westfold (Chairman)-1972; Prof. T. Cizova-March 1981; Prof. G. Greenwood, C.M.G.-1972; Mr H. G. McCredie-1972; Mr K. R. Skinner-April 1982; Prof. R. E. Luxton-June 1984; Dr. W. D. L. Ride-October 1984; Prof. A. D. Barton-October 1984. Expert Panel in Occupational English Mr G. Brindley-May 1985; Ms P. Fowler-May 1985; Dr John Gibbons (A/g Chairman)-March 1984; Dr T. Quinn-March 1984; Ms P. Newton-Howieson-February 1984; Ms S. Fullager-May 1985; Ms H. Moore-May 1985; Ms J. Phillips-May 1985; Ms M. Thompson-May 1985; Mr N. Sinclair-September 1981. Expert Panel in Occupational Therapy Mrs C. Webster (Chairman)-December 1978; Mrs P. Agnew-January 1979; Miss J. Bell-January 1979; Mrs M. Wilson-February 1979; Mrs J. Ziviani-July 1985; Mrs N. Hiep-July 1985. Expert Panel in Podiatry Dr Paul Hopkins (Chairman)-August 1982; Mr C. C. Hyde-August 1979; Mr R. Marshall-September 1979; Mr J. Pickering-August 1979; Mr A. Ross-August 1979. Expert Panel in Social Welfare Prof. P. Boss (Chairman)-December 1983; Dr. R. A. Nies-December 1983; Mr P. E. Felton-June 1982; Mrs E. Browne-December 1983; Mr B. J. Innes-July 1985. Expert Panel in Teaching Qualifications Dr D. J. Anders (Chairman)-August 1979; Mr N. H. Fry-July 1984; Mr K. R. Brennan-July 1984; Sister Miriam Mikol-March 1984; Mr A. R. Bunker-May 1973; Mr C. Fitzpatrick-March 1975. Expert Panel in Technical Qualifications Mr R. G. Foster-August 1980; Mr J. L. White (Chairman)-August 1980; Mr J. A. McIndoe-August 1980; Mr R. Attwood-July 1985. Expert Panel in Veterinary Science Dr D. M. Flynn (Chairman)-May 1970; Prof. D. C. Blood, O.B.E.-May 1970; Mr R. W. Gee-1975; Dr B. Ryan-1983; Dr J. Hills-1975; Dr R. H. J. Hyne-1975; Dr I. Miller-1975; Prof. M. Rex-1983. Dental Technician Sub-Committee Mr R. Boyle-1981; Mr G. Hallam-1981; Mr R. Scott-1981. Drafting Sub-Committee Mr P. Mears-1981; Mr E. Kennett-1981; Mr H. Greer-1981. Australian Pharmacy Examining Council Prof. T. R. Watson (Chairman)-30 November 1982; Prof. R. A. Anderson-30 November 1982; Mr A. T. Barr-30 November 1982; Mrs E. I. Barnes, O.A.M.-30 November 1982; Mr M. G. Blachford-30 November 1982; Mr N. Hunt Sharp-30 November 1982; Dr L. J. McLeod-30 November 1982; Mr G. C. Miller-5 September 1984; Mr K. M. Morgan-30 November 1982; Mr A. L. Rae-30 November 1982; Dr L. M. Sansom-30 November 1982. Australian Nursing Assessment Council Mrs M. Allwright, O.A.M. (Chairman)-August 1982; Mrs M. Doherty-August 1982; Miss R. Hitchins-8 September 1984; Sister Justin Cook-25 November 1984; Mrs R. McKenzie-25 November 1984; Miss M. Moffett-25 November 1984; Mrs P. Moses-25 November 1984; Ms J. Porter-25 November 1984; Mrs M. Kellow-25 November 1984; Miss M. Lafferty-July 1984. Australian Dental Examining Council Prof. K. J. Sutherland, A.M., (Chairman)-1982; Prof. N. D. Martin, A.M.-1982; Dr D. Anderson-1982; Dr J. Dawkins-1982; Dr J. B. Day-1982; Mr E. J. Gee, A.M.-1982; Dr R. W. Hession, A.M.-1982; Dr D. E. Innes-1982; Mr J. L. Prichard-1982; Dr D. Thornton-Taylor-1982. Australian Examining Council for Overseas Physiotherapists Prof. M. Bullock (Chairman)-1974; Miss P. Cosh, M.B.E.-1974; Miss B. Haynes-1974; Mrs P. J. Levick-1974; Ms D. Moore-1974; Dr L. Twomey-March 1984; Miss L. Warmington-March 1984; Miss R. Grant-March 1984. Australian Medical Examining Council Prof. E. G. Saint, C.M.G.-1978; Mr A. F. Bromwich-1978; Dr K. E. Goard-1985; Dr B. J. Amos-1984; Dr P. Brine-1981; Dr P. G. Livingstone-1978; Dr Stanley Goulston-1984; Dr B. W. Neal-1980; Prof. G. J. Fraenkel-1983; Prof. R. B. Blacket, A.O.-1983; Dr A. W. O. Young-1984. Note: Members of the Council on Overseas Professional Qualifications are appointed for a period of 3 years. The period of appointment to the various expert panels and councils is not standardised. Most appointments have not been for a fixed period although recent individual appointments have been for a period of four years. Some members of particular panels and councils are nominated by other organisations or are ex-officio members. The Chairman of the Council on Overseas Professional Qualifications receives a remuneration of $163.00 per sitting day. Members of the Council, its associated panels and councils receive remuneration of $131.00 per sitting day. (Remuneration Tribunal-Part-time holders of Public Office). Members who are employed by the Commonwealth or State Governments do not receive any remuneration. Travelling allowance is paid to each member travelling interstate at the Capital City Rate of $100.00 per overnight stay and $30.00 where absence is of 10 hours duration. National Population Council (NPC) Mr Tony Mulvihill-7.6.84 to 6.6.86; The Hon. Justice Sir James A. Gobbo-7.6.84 to 6.6.86; Dr David R. Cox A.M.-7.6.84 to 6.6.86; Mrs Franca Arena A.M. M.L.C.-7.6.84 to 6.6.86; Ms Mary Ann Bin-Sallik-7.6.84 to 6.6.86; Prof. John C. Caldwell-7.6.84 to 6.6.86; Mr Cliff Dolan A.O.-7.6.84 to 6.6.86; Mr Alvert Evans A.M.-7.6.84 to 6.6.86; Mr Bill Jegorow M.B.E.-7.6.84 to 6.6.86; Mr Alan Matheson-7.6.84 to 6.6.86; Ms Tessa Mallos-7.6.84 to 6.6.86; Ms Thea Mendelsohn-7.6.84 to 6.6.86; Dr Geoff Mosley-7.6.84 to 6.6.86; Prof. Max Neutze-7.6.84 to 6.6.86; Dr Charles Price A.M.-7.6.84 to 6.6.86; Mrs Adele Deirdre Rice-7.6.84 to 6.6.86; Mr Ian O. Spicer-7.6.84 to 6.6.86; Dr Frank Stilwell-7.6.84 to 6.6.86; Dr My-Van Tran-7.6.84 to 6.6.86; Mrs Maria A. Vukadinovic-Jockel-7.6.84 to 6.6.86; Prof. Colin Wendell Smith-7.6.84 to 6.6.86; Dr Ron Witton-7.6.84 to 6.6.86; Mr Wlodzimierz Wojak-7.6.84 to 6.6.86; Note: All members receive sitting fees of $131.00 per day for full Council Meetings. When chairing Committee meetings, Chairmen are entitled to receive a sitting fee of $163.00 per day. All other members receive $131 per day for Committee meetings. Travelling allowance is paid to each member travelling interestate at the Capital City Rate of $100.00 per overnight stay and $30.00 where absence is of 10 hours duration. Immigration Review Panel (IRP) Chairpersons Mr R. U. Metcalfe-January 1983-For the life of I.R.P.; Mr J. E. Blackie-31 July 1984 to 30 June 1986; Mr W. G. Kiddle O.B.E.-31 July 1984 to 30 June 1986; Mr D. S. Waddell-21 July 1985 to 30 June 1986. Members Mr Ray Barrett-18 January 1982 to 30 June 1986; Mr Victor Borg A.M.-18 January 1982 to 30 June 1986; Mr Tony Boskovic-18 January 1982 to 30 June 1986; Mr George Donikian-18 January 1982 to 30 June 1986; Mr Ivan Durrant-18 January 1982 to 30 June 1986; Mr King Fong-18 January 1982 to 30 June 1986; Miss Noni Hazelhurst-18 January 1982 to 30 June 1986; Mrs Elizabeth Hoffman-18 January 1982 to 30 June 1986; Miss Marlene Mathews A.M.-18 January 1982 to 30 June 1986; Mr Giancarlo Martini-Piovano-18 January 1982 to 30 June 1986; Mr Frederick Parslow-18 January 1982 to 30 June 1986; Mrs Marilyn Rowe Maver O.B.E.-18 January 1982 to 30 June 1986; Sir Garfied Sobers-18 January 1982 to 30 June 1986; Dr J. Alberto-31 July 1984 to 30 June 1986; Miss R. Dobson O.B.E.-31 July 1984 to 30 June 1986; Sheik El Chami O.A.M.-31 July 1984 to 30 June 1986; Hon. A. J. Grassby-31 July 1984 to 30 June 1986; Dr L. Kouzman-31 July 1984 to 30 June 1986; Mr G. Pappas M.B.E.-31 July 1984 to 30 June 1986; Dr J. Pettman-31 July 1984 to 30 June 1986; Mr B. Samardzic-31 July 1984 to 30 June 1986; Mrs I. Stillwell-31 July 1984 to 30 June 1986; Ms K. Sdrinis-31 July 1984 to 30 June 1986; Mr L. Bertelli-31 July 1984 to 30 June 1986; Mrs N. Miocevic-31 July 1984 to 30 June 1986; Ms A. Touriki-31 July 1984 to 30 June 1986; Mr F. Vana B.E.M.-31 July 1984 to 30 June 1986; Dr N. R. White-31 July 1984 to 30 June 1986; Mr U. Windt-31 July 1984 to 30 June 1986; Notes: 1. The periods of appointment have been so determined that the persons appointed will continue as Chairmen or members until Government decisions have been made on revised review arrangements following the Human Rights Commission Report and the expected Administrative Review Council Report. I have extended the initial periods of appointment of Chairmen Blackie, Kiddle, Waddell and all members to 30 June 1986. 2. As from November 1985 the Chairmen of the IRP receive a remuneration of $219 per day sitting fee and $219 per day for preparation work for sittings. Members receive $187 per day sitting fee. 3. As from July 1985 travelling allowance of $110 per overnight stay plus $30 for any additional period exceeding 10 hours but not involving a further overnight stay. An allowance of $30 is paid for travel where the absence is within the one day and is of 10 hours duration or more. (Question No. 1097) Mr Price asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 14 May 1985: (1) With respect to Department of Social Security and Commonwealth Employment Service local offices in the metropolitan areas what are the guidelines regarding the establishment of a local office and its boundaries. (2) Do the guidelines encompass the (a) community interest, (b) overlapping of local Government areas, (c) demographic movements, (d) industrial size and potential for growth, (e) availability and accessibility of public transport, and (f) the number and type of low income earners, and what are their relative weightings. (3) What are the relative weightings of the existing criteria. (4) Do the boundaries of Social Security and Commonwealth Employment Service offices overlap; if so, why. (5) What was the last change made to office boundaries that service constituents of the Electoral Division of Chifley and what were the reasons for the change. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The criteria for the establishment and location of regional offices of the Department of Social Security were provided to the honourable member by Mr Howe in his answer to question No. 1098 (Hansard, 10 September 1985, pages 504-5). Factors taken into account for the establishment and location of Commonwealth Employment Services (CES) offices include: Demographic factors-size and concentration, actual and potential, of client population; Labour market factors-demand for employment services, employer locations, vacancy market potential; Existing access to CES services; Workload pressures in existing offices; Availability of suitable office space and accessibility to public transport; and Resource availability. (3) The factors set out above are taken into account in the context of the particular circumstances of each case. (4) Overlaps do occur between the boundaries of Social Security and CES offices. They may happen for various reasons including: The greater dependence of the Department of Social Security than the CES on the postal system and the corresponding alignment of Social Security office boundaries with postcode areas; The particular circumstances of the establishment of Social Security and CES offices in the same or adjacent localities-for example, the date offices were originally established in the area, subsequent establishment of additional offices, and specific characteristics and requirements of client groups. (5) The last change made to CES office boundaries in the Electoral Division of Chifley was in March 1979 with the establishment of the St Marys office. This action was taken to ease the workload and accommodation pressures on the Mount Druitt office and to offer a more effective and geographically accessible level of employment assistance to clients located in St Marys and surrounding areas. (Question No. 1611) Mr Braithwaite asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 10 September 1985: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a petition of 3,000 signatures, received by the House on 20 August 1985, calling for stronger government action in response to child abuse. (2) Does the Government have a role to play in (a) responding to public opinion on this issue and (b) co-ordinating the States' responses to child abuse. (3) What action is the Government taking to support State Governments in (a) identifying and enforcing suitable deterrents against child abusers and (b) protecting children from habitual offenders. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) and (3) Under the Constitution the Federal Parliament does not have a general criminal legislative power and with respect to child abuse the primary responsibility lies with the legislatures of the States and the Northern Territory. The Commonwealth does have power with respect to child abuse in the Australian Capital Territory and the external territories. Notwithstanding this limited power, the Federal Government is acutely aware of the public concern about all aspects of domestic violence including child abuse. With this in mind it requested the Australian Institute of Criminology to host a national conference on all aspects of domestic violence. This conference held in Canberra from 11-15 November 1985 is to be followed by a related conference on all aspects of child abuse to be held in the week beginning 3 February 1986. It is hoped that these conferences will lead to a co-ordinated approach to the problems, both in relation to the victims and the offenders. (Question No. 1928) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 19 September 1985: (1) Has his attention been drawn to reports appearing in the Sydney Morning Herald on 23 August 1985 in an article entitled `Government bodies harassing us, says Wyuna' stating that (a) according to a member of the Wyuna community, Mr James Conlon, several of its members were being investigated by the Taxation Office, the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, and the Department of Social Security, (b) Mr Conlon had said that the investigations seemed to have stemmed from the publicity surrounding the grant and the inquiry conducted by a former Crown Solicitor, Mr Brian O'Donovan and (c) the Wyuna community contended that it had been subjected to extraordinary and unwarranted scrutiny both during the grant process and after the grant process had been completed. (2) Has the Wyuna community, or any of its members, been investigated by his Department (a) as a result of the Inquiry into the Housing Community Expansion Program or (b) for any other reasons. (3) Have members of the community been harassed by his Department; if not, what action was taken by him and his Department to ensure that the claims were rebutted. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) (a) No investigation has been instigated by my Department as a result of the Inquiry into the Housing Community Expansion Program. I was briefed about certain matters; a copy of that brief is at Attachment JY of the report. I do not consider that any `investigation' took place; (b) prior to the establishment of the Inquiry some people believed to be members of the Wyuna Co-operative applied to remain permanently in Australia. Those applications are being considered individually under the normal process. The whereabouts of a person whose immigration status in Australia was under observation was being sought through the normal activities of my Department and this included a call by departmental officers at 22 Morant Circuit, Kambah on 1 August 1985. (3) I am assured that members of the Wyuna Co-operative have never been harassed by officers of my Department. It is not necessary or feasible to comment on or rebut every unfounded or ill informed allegation which appears in the press. (Question No. 1929) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 19 September 1985: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a report in the Canberra Times of 21 August 1985 containing claims by Dr Jim Cairns that there was a tremendous amount of leaks in the report of the Inquiry into the Public Housing Expansion Program in the Australian Capital Territory including leaks from his Department and the Department of Housing and Construction. (2) Have investigations by his Department disclosed any unauthorised information being included in the Report. (3) Were the (a) references in paragraphs 5.16 and 5.19 of the Report and (b) copy of a briefing note to him from the Canberra Regional Office of his Department (Attachment JY) provided to the inquiry by (i) him, (ii) his Department or (iii) an unauthorised source. (4) If the provision of information to the inquiry was authorised, what steps has he taken to draw to public notice the fact that Dr Cairns' allegation of a leak from the Department is incorrect. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) There has been no investigation on any leakage of unauthorised information from my Department to the Inquiry nor is one necessary. (3) The reference at paragraph 5.16 of the report is, I believe, a reference to material provided by the Wyuna Co-operative to Mr O'Donovan. Paragraph 5.19 relates to Attachment JY which is a copy of a brief to me from the Canberra Regional Office of my Department and which I provided to the responsible Minister. Once the Government had decided to establish the Inquiry, it was my duty to make available all information which I considered to be of possible relevance. I did so. (4) It should be self-evident that the provision of possibly relevant information to the Inquiry from an official source is not a `leak'. In these circumstances it is not necessary or even feasible to rebut every unfounded or ill informed allegation which appears in the press. (Question No. 2103) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 9 October 1985: In what way was the Information Co-ordination Branch of his Department upgraded, to reflect its expanded functions after the subsumption of the Australian Government Advertising Service as indicated in the Department of the Special Minister of State annual report for 1983-84. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Prior to March 1984 the Information Co-ordination Branch (ICB) and the Australian Government Advertising Service (AGAS operated as separate Branches with a total combined average operative staffing level (AOSL) of 32 which included two Assistant Secretary, Level 1 officers. When AGAS was incorporated into ICB the ICB Assistant Secretary's position was upgraded temporarily to Senior Assistant Secretary, Level 2. ICB's AOSL has since been reduced as the revised procedures for procuring and accounting for advertising services recommended in the Review of Commonwealth Advertising came into effect. The position of Senior Assistant Secretary was withdrawn following ICB's integration into the Information Services Division in May 1985. ICB (including the central advertising service) now has an AOSL of 25 which includes one Assistant Secretary, Level 1 position. (Question No. 2105) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 9 October 1985: Has the Australia Day Council considered the question of a new flag for Australia; if so, what has been the result of its deliberations. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The National Australia Day Council considered the design of the national flag at its meeting in July 1985. The Council decided to promote the national flag, whatever its design, and took the view that questions relating to the design of the flag are not within its terms of reference. (Question No. 2144) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 11 October 1985: (1) What advertising agency is responsible for the design, preparation and lodgment of advertising relating to the Priority One campaign. (2) Was this campaign supervised by the Information Co-ordination Branch of the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism. (3) Which newspapers contained the Priority One advertising and what was the cost of advertising in each newspaper. (4) What are the names of the people who appear in the photograph contained in the advertising and (a) were they paid for appearing, (b) are they professional models or actors and (c) was formal permission obtained from each individual for the publication of their photographs. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Chandler, Hambleton Mier is the agency responsible for the design and preparation. USP Needham as Master Agency is responsible for the lodgment. (2) Yes. (3)- Newpaper Costs $ The Australian... 12,509.28 Sydney Morning Herald... 38,726.55 Sydney Daily Mirror... 23,459.06 Sydney Daily Telegraph... 21,834,40 Sydney Daily Sun... 18,750.66 Melbourne Herald... 14,283.26 Melbourne Age... 12,677.78 Melbourne Sun... 36,009.87 Brisbane Courier-Mail... 21,744.36 Brisbane Daily Sun... 8,296.96 Brisbane Telegraph... 6,895.20 Adelaide Advertiser... 23,327.16 Adelaide News... 9,273.31 Perth West Australian... 11,198.81 Perth Daily News... 5,371.32 Hobart Mercury... 6,917.13 Darwin Northern Territory News... 3,611.82 Canberra Times... 11,480.30 Newcastle Herald... 6,852.60 Coffs Harbour Advocate... 1,217.88 Bathurst Advocate... 1,200.74 Goulburn Evening Post... 1,231.34 Illawara Mercury... 2,913.12 Grafton Examiner... 1,217.88 Lismore Star... 1,597.32 Daily News/Gold CSTR... 1,360.68 Lithgow Mercury... 964.52 Maitland Mercury... 1,219.92 Orange Central Daily... 1,187.28 Tamworth Leader... 1,441.64 Dubbo Liberal... 1,309.68 Wagga Advertiser... 1,528.36 Barrier Daily Truth... 1,713.60 Bendigo Advertiser... 2,934.34 Geelong Advertiser... 3,711.16 Shepparton News... 1,248.48 Albury Border Mail... 1,835.60 Ballarat Courier... 1,815.06 Mildura Daily... 2,376.60 Warrnambool Standard... 1,329.88 Warwick News... 1,234.82 Townsville Bulletin... 3,881.22 Cairns Post... 3,088.56 Toowoomba Chronicle... 1,950.42 Mt Isa Star... 1,395.36 Rockhampton Bulletin... 1,889.82 Maryborough Chronicle... 1,303.56 Sunshine Coast Daily... 1,455.34 Mackay Mercury... 1,605.00 Ipswich Queensland Times... 1,578.82 Gympie Times... 1,197.48 Gold Coast Bulletin... 1,815.20 Gladstone Observer... 1,316.42 Bundaberg News... 1,421.98 Kalgoorlie Miner... 1,009.68 Burnie Advocate... 2,258.08 Launceston Examiner... 2,902.82 Neos Kosmos... 899.64 New Country... 899.64 Greek Herald... 899.64 Tele Haber... 719.71 Gunes... 642.60 Yeni Dunya... 899.64 Il Globo... 899.64 La Fiamma... 918.00 Corried Portugese... 734.40 O Portuguese Na Aust... 771.12 El Espanol En Aust... 734.40 Spanish Herald... 1,439.42 El Telegraph... 796.82 Chuong Saigon... 660.96 Nova Doba... 771.12 Novosti... 899.64 These costs include the 2 per cent service fee. (4) A total of fifteen people were recruited; it being normal agency practice to recruit some extra persons to cover last minute unsuitability or non-attendance. Their names are: Matthew Angwin Monique Silk Jason Davidson Aram Cargill Catherine Van Vliet Alinta Davidson James Webster Alan Marks Craig Ravells Jason Rankine Tomoko Sano Leigh Holliday Lindsay Worthington Mark Reid Donna Bracken (a) They were all paid $40.00. (b) Three females and one male had previously undertaken professional modelling. (c) Yes. (Question No. 2211) Mr Sharp asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 15 October 1985: (1) What gross sale price did the Government obtain for the sale of the Grumman Tracker aircraft stationed at HMAS Albatross, Nowra. (2) Did the sale include all spare parts and engines of the Grumman Tracker aircraft. (3) What was the original purchase price of the Grumman Tracker aircraft. (4) To whom were the aircraft sold. (5) Who were the agents who sold the aircraft on behalf of the Government. (6) What commission, expenses and other financial rewards did the agents receive for the sale of the aircraft. (7) What was the net amount received by the Government after all expenses and commissions were deducted from the sale. (8) Did the Government receive proposals for the purchase of the aircraft from any Australian interests; if so, who were they and for what purposes did they intend to use the aircraft. (9) Have Grumman Tracker aircraft been converted into (a) aerial fire fighting units and (b) jet engined units, by other countries. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The honourable member asked a similar question without notice on 17 October 1985 (Hansard page 2338). As I advised him then, negotiations to sell the aircraft and spares are still under way. When a sale takes place I will let the honourable member and the House know. (Question No. 2516) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 18 November 1985: (1) Does the Minister's Department, or any statutory authority responsible to the Minister, provide grants to organisations operating in the Australian Capital Territory. (2) Do such grants have a requirement that any organisation so funded be registered under the Australian Capital Territory Association Incorporation Ordinance 1953; if so, what steps are taken by the Minister's Department to ensure that the funded organisation has complied with the Ordinance before any grant is made. (3) Does the Minister's Department or statutory authority carry out a search of the register at the Australian Capital Territory Corporate Affairs Commission. (4) If the search discloses a failure to comply with the Australian Capital Territory Associations Incorporation Ordinance, what steps are taken to ensure that the matter is remedied by those responsible for administration of the Ordinance, or the incorporated association. (5) Have all incorporated associations within the Australian Capital Territory funded by the Minister's Department or statutory authority complied with the Ordinance requirements for lodging particulars of financial affairs and balance sheets annually. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) to (5) See answer to (1).