Friday, 2 May 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Debate resumed from 1 May, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Blunt had moved by way of amendment: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for- (1) implementing the amnesty for the clients of the Department of Social Security who have received overpayments as the proposal (a) establishes a double standard, (b) disadvantages honest clients, (c) undermines the work of Departmental field officers, (d) sabotages field investigators' morale, and (e) provides no guarantee that overpayment and fraud will not occur in the future, and (2) its economic policies such as the capital gains tax and the prohibition on negative gearing which have increased the cost of housing and rent necessitating extending the rent subsidy to the long term unemployed'. Mr HODGES(Petrie)(10.01) —In continuing my remarks on the Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill, I want to direct most of my comments to the attitude of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) and the Hawke socialist Government, their disposition towards social welfare in this country. I particularly want to make reference to the attitude of the Minister and to the disgraceful amnesty that this Bill enshrines. During his political career the Minister for Social Security has endeavoured to teach the people of Australia about class-class distinctions and class privileges. During the Fraser years he was convinced, and no doubt is still convinced, that the conservative political parties in Australia were hell-bent on grinding the poor into the ground. This is not the case. Let me assure the House and the people of this nation that the Liberal and National parties in coalition government have a fine record of initiating, instituting and supporting measures for the poor, the needy, the disabled, the aged and veterans. Mr Fife —We have been leaders. Mr HODGES —Yes, we have been leaders, as the honourable member for Hume reminds me. In his crusade against democracy, the Minister made some very silly accusations indeed. We have had to put up with statements such as this from the broad Left conference on 28 March this year, when the Minister for Social Security said: Fraser and Howard believe government support made the poor lazy while the rich needed government support through incentives provided by tax breaks and subsidies. Again, from that broad Left conference: Our institutional structures, both public and private, are largely geared to suit the needs of wealth and privilege. I suspect that the Minister fancies himself as a modern day Robin Hood-little Red Robbing Hood. His purpose in life is to steal from the rich and give to the poor-a philosophy for others, but obviously not for the Minister for Social Security himself. I wish he were in the House. He ought to be in the House to carry this legislation. Like a lot of Government members, he has not got much time or sympathy for the people in between. As M. A. Jones wrote in 1977 in the work Australian Society: . . . in the group immediately above the poverty population who are in the workforce and often pay substantial amounts of tax, especially indirect tax, and work hard at unattractive jobs at incomes very similar to those received by the welfare class. This group are often understandably hostile to an expression of welfare benefits, especially to the so-called undeserving poor. I would like to indulge for a short time in reflection of the Minister's performance during the early 1980s when debate in this House centred around taxation laws affecting evasion and avoidance. I am very pleased that the Minister for Social Security has seen fit to come into the chamber. This is appropriate because a significant function of the Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill is to provide for the Hawke socialist Government's weak attempt to curb welfare fraud. Tax evasion, that is, denying governments revenue, is no different from welfare fraud, which also denies governments revenue. On 22 April 1982, speaking on the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill, the Minister for Social Security accused the then Fraser Government of `lacking determination to get to the root of tax avoidance issues'. He said that the Fraser Government did not appear to be threatening to take, or taking a strong position against tax fraud. He was talking, he said, about cases in which millions of dollars-perhaps tens of millions of dollars-could be lost in terms of taxation. They were the words of the Minister for Social Security. Figures describing the extent of social security fraud today range from $20m to $1 billion annually. In August of 1982 the Minister responsible for this present legislation advised the Fraser Government: It ought to be suggesting that where people are not prepared to conform to what we regard as good practice in terms of Australian interests, where they are attempting to get around our taxation laws, avoid our taxation laws, they ought to recognise and they ought to know that a very serious risk is involved. A year earlier, in 1981, he had the audacity to say that the Fraser Government had failed to stop tax avoidance effectively, because that Government was not serious about it. The reason he gave was that the then Treasurer, the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), had `too may friends who were into it'. We find that in the Hansard record at page 135 on 25 February 1981. `It' was tax evasion. It begs the question: Who are the Minister's friends? Are they into social welfare fraud? There is a significant trend in this country to scorn anyone who suggests that we dob in our mates. When the shadow Minister for Social Security, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), suggested that the Government institute an Operation Noah-style campaign against social security cheats, he met with scathing criticism. The Labor Government, which I might add is occasionally controlled by a man who is a contrived embodiment of all that is Australian, said that such a measure would be downright un-Australian. Operation Noah was hailed as a successful attempt at gathering information from the public about drug traffic suspects. However, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) just would not stand for a dob-in on those who cheat the social security system. You just cannot tell on your mates, even if behind your back they are doing you an injustice. The rhetoric members of the Government use is fascinating stuff. The Government's muted-some might say dumb-attack on welfare fraud through amnesty only applies, to quote the Minister again: . . . to people who've omitted to do something-that is, they failed to advise a change of financial or other circumstances. It has been specifically designed for people on the treadmill. Let me examine what the word `treadmill' means. My paperback Oxford Dictionary says that it is a wide mill turned by the weight of people treading on steps fixed around its edge and which, formerly, was worked by prisoners as a punishment. The Minister, at the table, might well smile. I cannot imagine that the Hawke socialist Government is suggesting that welfare recipients are on the treadmill as some sort of punishment. On the other hand, `treadmill' can mean tiring, monotonous, routine work. That does not apply too well, either, because a lot of social security beneficiaries do not actually work, unless they are claiming the dole and working as well and somehow omit to tell the Department of Social Security that they have a job. One wonders how that could happen. So who are these people caught on the treadmill? According to the Minister's news releases, some of them are newcomers to Australia. Such newcomers apparently have been in the country for only a very short time and have not had time to learn the welfare system ropes. Nonetheless, according to the Government, they have been here long enough to get on the treadmill. I can assure the Minister for Social Security that when I was Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs many people who arrived here with little or no English as first arrivals seemed to know more about our social welfare system than many people who had been here half their lives. Mr Howe —I agree with that. Mr HODGES —The Minister says that he agrees with that. Before the angels of mercy on the benches opposite accuse me of considering people on welfare as lazy and stupid, I believe that genuine recipients deserve all the help they can get. Indeed, many deserve more. But I know that a welfare state can never satisfy its dependants. The Minister for Social Security has admitted: . . . mere incrementalism-giving a dollar here and there-on its own is neither effective or affordable. He made that comment to a civilian widows' convention on 7 March this year. But that is what social security in this country is all about-giving a dollar here and there, only just keeping up with the cost of living. If the Minister heeded his Treasurer perhaps he could accept that this country does not have the resources to be turned into a total welfare state. He ought to know, as every other taxpayer and resident in this country knows, that there is no bottomless pit of funds. He would know that the Treasurer sees an urgent need to reduce Australia's massive deficit. But the Minister believes that worrying about deficits is nonsense. He is ashamed that his Government's outlays rate so poorly compared to those of other countries. `Deficit fetishism' he calls it. Is that correct, Minister? He nods approval. There will never be enough funds in Australia to rescue the poor securely from poverty. The coalition knows it and the economic pragmatists in the Hawke socialist Government know it, not that they are doing much about it. I return to the illusive treadmill. I ask the Minister a question in view of his statement on 17 April this year in which he stated: The limited amnesty on social security payments was making a significant contribution to the overall campaign against fraud and overpayments. How many social security recipients on the treadmill have already reported that they have been in receipt of over payments and how much has been saved as a result since the amnesty's inception? As the amnesty came into force in February and will finish at the end of May - the Minister was able to reassure us that it was working significantly well by 17 April - that is a question he must surely be able to answer. My next question to the Minister is: If one were not quick enough to jump off the treadmill this time, when will the next opportunity arise which will allow one to do so? The Minister shakes his head. It does not look as though it is going to happen. There is an amnesty now, so why not another amnesty in the future? Mr Howe —Are you advocating that? Mr HODGES —No, I am not advocating it. I would never have had an amnesty in the first place. Why cease the amnesty at all? Why not continue it right through? This legislation is a disgrace. Surely people know whether they are entitled to a benefit. After all, the Government spends enough money on propaganda telling people about what is up for grabs. The tone of the amnesty is not threatening. It does not even appear to be threatening. In fact, one could say that the people this Government requests to come forward under the amnesty are being treated as the victims of some complex and nightmarish administrative system. The two social security offices in my electorate in the south east corner of Queensland, and including Brisbane central office, are in good shape. I believe that the departmental officers are caring and helpful to people. This is weak legislation. The Government is apologising to beneficiaries who know that they are receiving overpayments and that they are breaking the law. The Minister for Social Security passionately believes that Australians do not give a damn about the welfare class. He believes that our public and private structures pander to the needs of wealth and privilege. Let me quote to the House what Professor David Kemp said recently in a speech, because it is well put. He said: Australians as a people possibly place a higher value on helping those in genuine need than any other nation. Not only does Government provide 80 per cent of the income of one-fifth of Australian households: There is also an enormous private welfare effort in Australia which goes largely unnoticed. A 1984 report from the Social Welfare Research Centre in New South Wales discovered some 25,000 or more non-government welfare organisations in Australia attracting some $1.5 to $3 billion from private sources. These organisations employ several hundred thousand people and in addition enlist the aid of possibly as many as 1.7 million volunteers. Australians are not lacking concern for the unfortunate. Welfare reproduces poverty and the social security system does not rouse people to succeed. This Bill is yet another excuse for them to rely on that system. It is another example of reproducing poverty. Through this Bill the Hawke Government will extend financial assistance to genuinely homeless youth. They will welcome the new benefit. But thanks to this budgetary measure parents prone to neglect their children have no reason to give them a second thought. That is one of the failings of this measure. The one law Australia needs and has not got is one whereby when people decide to embark on the adventure and pleasures of child creation they undertake to be responsible for the product of that adventure. We have now an Act on affirmative action, an Act on sex discrimination and a Bill to implement an amnesty for welfare cheats, and still nothing has been done to prevent blatant abuse of court orders for child maintenance. Some 40 per cent of all such orders are ignored, according to the Institute of Family Studies. I hope the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), who is responsible in this total area of welfare nationally, will take note of that and I hope that he will make some comment about it. Another 20 per cent of such orders are paid only sporadically. This amnesty, this impotent response to social security fraud, stings everyone, ordinary taxpayers and genuine welfare recipients alike-everyone except of course the welfare cheats. The Hawke Government has its thick head in the clouds if it seriously thinks that most people in receipt of overpayments receive them innocently. That is what this Minister is saying. The Hawke socialist Government has its thick head in the clouds if it seriously believes that the amnesty has adequate provisions for distinguishing innocent fraud from premeditated fraud. What measures are there to determine whether the Department is actually being told the truth by those people who do come forward and admit that they have been accidentally trapped on the treadmill? Welfare fraud in Australia is extensive; the Hawke Government has failed all honest citizens by choosing to take the soft approach to it. It is just another soft option that is always taken by Prime Minister Hawke. He has never taken a hard decision or hard option in his life. A dollar into one person's pocket is a dollar out of someone else's. The average Australian taxpayer, the person situated just above the welfare belt, is fed up with footing the bill for cheats and scoundrels. Mr FITZGIBBON(Hunter)(10.18) —I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Social Security Legislation Bill 1986. This is a very comprehensive piece of legislation which will correct many anomalies and minor technical drafting defects in the principal Act and will provide a legislative basis for several important measures introduced by the Government. I shall not attempt to canvass all the amendments, but confine my remarks to some of the major points of the legislation. The remarks of the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) were not at all illuminative. The honourable member is a former Minister, a shining example of why his Party is now in Opposition and why it will stay there. He says that the Hawke Government has its head in the clouds. I would respectfully suggest that it is better than being a conservative who has his head in the sand. The highlight of this legislation is the introduction from 1 July this year of the young homeless allowance for homeless and unsupported young-people of 16 and 17 years of age. This allowance was foreshadowed in the 1985-86 Budget Paper No. 13 on youth policies. The young homeless allowance which will be equivalent to the tertiary education allowance of $73.28 per week is available only under very strict conditions to ensure that there is no incentive for young people to leave home. I applaud the Government's action towards these unfortunate youngsters. I am appalled at the obvious breakdown in our society which has resulted in so many of our young people having to leave their homes because of intolerable conditions. It is a sad commentary on our society that there are some parents who can turn their backs on their children and leave them to face the world alone. I know all honourable members here would share my horror at the numerous Press reports which appear in all papers, almost on a daily basis, about young children, even as young as seven years, who are homeless and have no means of support. I find these reports so very depressing. I am reminded of the quotation which appeared at the front of that excellent Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare report on homeless youth which said: Homeless youths' needs are hardly extravagant and certainly fall within the inalienable rights of all people: the right to food, shelter and a positive and loving family environment. Since homeless youngsters do not have these needs fulfilled in a family context, it may be necessary to explore independent living facilities, teach them life skills and give them support for an interim period while they move toward adulthood. I draw honourable members' attention to the recommendations contained in chapter 5 of that report, and I am so very pleased that this Government has recognised the need of these youngsters who are homeless and without support. It is a tragedy that we find so many youngsters living in all manner of unsatisfactory circumstances-in refuges, in substandard group housing, even in parks and bus shelters, open to all kinds of exploitation and dangers. The Government's swift action to implement the young homeless allowance from 1 July this year shows its determination to ensure that young unsupported people, in genuine need, are provided with adequate and equitable support, in line with the Priority One program. It is estimated that the homeless youth allowance will involve an expenditure of $2m over 1986-87 and $2m in 1987-88. The introduction of the homeless youth allowance and the amendment to `bar' unemployment or sickness benefits or special benefits to full-time students who are eligible to education allowances is a related issue. This latter amendment has arisen as a result of recent Administrative Appeals Tribunal decisions for the payment of special benefits to unsupported school students. The Government is anxious that full time students should be covered by education allowances rather than what are primarily work-related benefits. Since a corresponding young homeless allowance will be available separately under the secondary assistance scheme program, full time students will be more appropriately assisted by education allowances, and the Government has made provision to ensure that those students currently receiving special benefits will receive those benefits until the end of the academic year. As a result of this bar amendment, it is estimated that savings will be in the order of $410m in 1986-87 and $20m in 1987-88. Many young people whose educational opportunities have been severely limited through a lack of parental support will now be able to pursue their studies at both secondary and tertiary levels. This Government has again demonstrated its awareness of the problems facing so many of our young people today, and I am so very proud of the Hawke Labor Government's record in implementing policies designed to alleviate poverty and difficult circumstances confronting these youngsters. This Government has made young Australians our number one priority. I turn now to another important aspect in this legislation. This Bill provides the legislative basis for the Government's social security amnesty announced on 12 February this year which runs till 31 May. As all honourable members are aware, the amnesty applies only to those people who are, or at least were at one stage, genuine clients of the Department of Social Security who failed to notify a change in circumstances that would have reduced their level of payment. Those people voluntarily coming forward during the amnesty could do so without any fear of a penalty or liability to repay any overpayment. The amnesty arose from the need to reduce the massive social security overpayments, but did not cover those people deliberately defrauding the system, and the Opposition misunderstands that position. At a time when the Government is faced with the massive task of providing benefits to so many of the needy in our society, as a result of the amnesty there will be a substantial reduction in overpayments. The Government has introduced an essential integrated strategy designed to prevent future overpayments and has improved the means of identifying and investigating fraud and overpayments. By harnessing many recent technological advances, implementing a range of administrative reforms, removing legal ambiguities in the Social Security Act, and committing additional resources to this task, the Government intends to reduce the level of social security overpayments over the next three years. Savings to the Australian taxpayers are expected to be in the order of $90m by 1988. The Government's strategy is based on one fundamental precept: That there is no one, simplistic solution to the problem of social security overpayment. The Government recognises that, if overpayments are to be tackled effectively, there must be a comprehensive strategy in place which integrates a wide range of measures, covering all aspects to do with the prevention, detection, calculation and recovery of over- payments. Reducing poverty is too important a goal for the Government to tolerate fraud in the social security system. I understand that the toll-free hotline set up during the amnesty has been most successful and that a large number of genuine `treadmill' people have taken advantage of the amnesty to set the record straight. The Bill before us also contains new arrangements for the treatment of a lump sum amount of compensation received by a sickness beneficiary, with effect from 1 July this year. I am sure all honourable members have been approached by constituents who have been confused about compensation claims and sickness benefits. At present the Act guards against double dipping by providing sickness benefits to be reduced, not paid, or recovered, where compensation covers the same period. However, there is uncertainty about the treatment of lump sums. The new arrangements will require a lump sum payable as from 1 July 1986 to be regarded as a series of periodical payments equal to average weekly earnings, thus providing a precise period of preclusion from sickness benefit, or a precise period in which sickness benefit is recoverable. The new arrangements are expected to create savings of $20m in 1986-87 and $20m in 1987-88. This legislation also provides for the abolition as from 1 July 1986 of an anomaly by which the rate of unemployment beneficiaries who are legally married but permanently separated is higher than for an unmarried person. This is a much fairer arrangement, and is likely to create savings in the vicinity of $4.5m in 1986-87 and $5m in 1987-88. It is important to stress that, whilst this Bill will generate considerable savings in some areas, the Government has maintained its commitment to provide for the most needy in our society. In looking at this Labor Government's achievements, it is important to remember the entrenched poverty we inherited from the previous coalition Government, which presented a major challenge for the Government. Let me give the House a few examples of allowances which had fallen in real terms under the previous Government. The additional pension for children had declined by 34.7 per cent; the mothers/guardians allowance had declined by the same amount; rent assistance had dropped by 2.1 per cent; the single adult unemployment benefit had declined by 18.6 per cent; and the junior unemployment benefit had collapsed by 45.6 per cent. Indexation of the single adult unemployment benefit rate was withdrawn in 1978 and had fallen nearly $13 behind the single adult pension rate by 1983. Indexation of other pensions and benefits was changed from six-monthly to annually and reversed only after vigorous community protest. Poverty deepened through the 1982-83 Howard recession, as the numbers on unemployment benefit increased. For instance, in 1980 there were 311,232 people on unemployment benefits. In 1981 there were 314,500. In 1982 there were 390,664, and in 1983 there were 635,000-nearly double the figure for 1980. However, in 1984 this figure had decreased to 584,000, and there was a further drop in 1985 to 561,000. Under the previous Government's economic strategy the unemployed were made to bear the burden of economic change. Under that Government ever increasing levels of unemployment became an accepted fact of life and increasing numbers of Australia's youth faced permanent exclusion from a normal economic and social life. But this Government recognised that the record levels of unemployment it inherited were a major cause of poverty. It has created over 600,000 new jobs through successful economic management policies. In its social security programs, this Government has: Increased payments to those in greatest need; eased the transition from welfare to work through an attack on poverty traps; improved access to social security programs for disadvantaged groups such as migrants; introduced a common youth allowance to improve income support provisions for young people; and redirected expenditure to free resources for people in poverty. A number of other positive benefits have accrued to the Australian people. I would like to refer to many more of the positive features of this legislation which is being brought forward by this Government, but time has beaten me. I conclude by saying that I am very proud of the Government's record and particularly proud of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), who is making a tremendous effort to help the most disadvantaged members of our society. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(10.30) —I suppose that I, along with all other members on this side of the House, should feel sorry for the people of Australia who have had to listen to the diatribe from the previous speaker, the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon). He mentioned-and I understand that there has been no chopping of the time available to individual speakers in this debate-that he had run out of time. Well, he still had another seven or eight minutes left and I suggest respectfully that he simply ran out of things to say. He was trying to suggest that the previous Government, the Fraser-Anthony Government, had a very poor record in the area of social security. My colleague the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) has shown that that is simply not the case. If one could believe the words of the honourable member for Hunter, the more spent in the area of social welfare the better it is for the country. We know that that statement is simply not correct. We should look at how the money is spent. We should ensure that it is getting to those people in need and those people who are deserving of the receipt of social welfare payments. The Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill 1986 which is before us today seeks to make a number of amendments to the Social Security Act and the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971. The nature of the legislation, and the amnesty provided for, gives honourable members the opportunity to talk about this Government's approach to social welfare and its effect on the Australian economy. The Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) in his second reading speech outlined that amendments to the Social Security Act also included the introduction of the young homeless allowance; a bar to payment of unemployment, sickness or special benefit to a full time student who is eligible, in principle, for an education allowance; a change in the treatment of lump sum compensation payable to sickness beneficiaries; and a change in the rate of benefit that applies to a legally married but permanently separated unemployment beneficiary to the rate that applies to a single unemployment beneficiary. The Minister has claimed-and I am pleased to see that he is in the chamber to listen to what I have to say this morning-that the changes to the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act will improve the administration of the compensation system. We in the National Party of Australia, and indeed our coalition partners, would say that any improvement in the maladministration by this Government is a step in the right direction. We should consider that many people come forward and say that this or that payment, or this or that benefit, is necessary to assist certain groups in the community. I am certain that every member of this House would like to assist, more than we as a nation are economically able, those people who are in need. However, this nation has finite resources and the Hawke Government is sending Australia down the financial chute in the same direction as Argentina. I digress to recommend that people should read a book by Duncan and Fogarty entitled Australia and Argentina on Parallel Paths, published by the Melbourne University Press in 1984. The comparisons are frightening and horrifying. I wonder what sort of society we will hand over to our children in years to come. What we must do is look at the resources we have available. We must use those resources in the best possible manner to make sure that that money gets through to those people who are in need of help. Unfortunately, the Government's approach in this Bill once again fails to address the key issues of high government expenditure, the blowout in expenditure on social welfare, and the development of a handout mentality on the part of a growing number of Australian citizens. In The Other America, Harrington stated: There is the fundamental paradox of the welfare state; that it is not built for the desperate, but for those who are already capable of helping themselves. I do not agree entirely with what Mr Harrington said. However, I do suggest that we must make sure that in fact money and assistance get through to the needy and not to the greedy. In his second reading speech the Minister had the audacity to say that the youth policies in the 1985-86 Budget recognised the need to support young people, whether students or unemployed. Young people are Australia's future and we in the National Party and the Liberal Party would very strongly support this principle. However, the simple fact of the matter is that Labor's sad record shows that it has little or no concern for the youth of Australia. The damning figures speak clearly for themselves. In the period since the ill-fated 1983 election of the Hawke Labor Government, Labor has seen the recipients of unemployment benefit grow from 5.7 per cent of the labour force to 7.76 per cent of the labour force. So much for the party which has full unemployment as a tenet! What a joke! It is even worse if we look at the situation for those people who are aged from 18 years to 24 years, because the figures show that almost 40 per cent of those people are jobless. I suggest that unless something is done as a matter of extreme urgency over these figures Government members will join the jobless queue after the next election. The Government has no right to claim to be helping those people studying in Australia. Last year during debate in this House honourable members would have clearly heard of the numbers of students being refused access to our tertiary institutions. Under current Labor education funding many thousands have suffered in this way. I am quite certain that every member of the House of Representatives would have had constituents come to him or her complaining over the fact that students are not able to gain places in higher education institutes and universities. If we believe the Federal Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, 10,000 people have been denied places. Perhaps it was at the massive level of 30,000 which was suggested by the shadow Minister for Education, the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack), last year. I might add that the honourable member for Tangney's figures are likely to be more realistic. In any event it is common ground that thousands upon thousands of young Australians cannot gain places in tertiary institutions. Labor is cheating these young people of their futures and it is indeed a sad and sorry state of affairs when more and more have no alternative but to join Labor's dole queues. The warning lights are flashing and the Government must realise that its economic policies are directly contributing to the desperate plight of youth in this country. In this Bill we now see the introduction of a new allowance for 16- and 17-year-olds who are homeless and without support. While I do not dispute that assistance should be given to those in genuine need whose families have rejected them, I sincerely hope that this new allowance will not encourage young people to leave home and will not encourage the continued breakup of the family unit, which we in the National Party believe is the fundamental unit in our society. However, I do believe that the current Government's approach to social welfare is rapidly fostering the idea that many people expect that the Government should look after them from the cradle to the grave. I am sure that such a mentality could not have been thought of in the 1898 Federal Convention which decided that the provision of age and invalid pensions should be a Federal function. When the first social security policies were being considered in the late 1890s, there were basically three modest objectives: Firstly, to supplement relief provided by families and voluntary charitable institutions to the deserving aged and poor people so as to ensure them a basic minimum level of well-being; secondly, to provide this assistance in a way which would not discourage thrift and self-reliance; and, finally, to limit expenditure on such relief to a fair and reasonable amount for the community to provide. Unfortunately, it would seem today that this policy direction is being thrown by the wayside. We on this side of the House support assistance for those people who need assistance. What we do oppose is the sort of profligate expenditure which the Government seems to have in so many areas. Perhaps the Government feels bound to bring in some of these things to satisfy the ideological concerns of a colleague opposite, the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand). I do not know. It is a sad state of affairs that the honourable member for Melbourne seems to exert and exercise ever greater control over the policies of this Government. We have to look at what is desirable and we have to compare that with what is affordable. We must assist the genuine and we must try, as the honourable member for Richmond pointed out, to stamp out fraud. The Government is bringing in an amnesty sham. That was covered very successfully and effectively in his usual manner by my parliamentary neighbour and colleague, the honourable member for Petrie. We should look at what the Government is not doing in some of the fraudulent cases which have arisen because of the way in which the Government has not kept a sufficiently tight control on social security matters. We should look at some of the headlines of articles in the various newspapers, such as: `Inquiry called on prisoners' dole', `Dole cheque leaves taxi industry short on drivers', a headline in the Advertiser of July last year; a headline in the Courier-Mail, `Dole fraud case: Second man charged'; a headline in the West Australian, `Victorian racket on pensions suspected'; the West Australian again, `Police tell of big-time welfare rackets'. The headlines go on: Where does it all end? Other headlines state: `Fraud in welfare system', `Crime cheats hit welfare', and so on until we get this gem which was published a couple of years ago: `Four drew $17,000 a week dole, court told'. The Government is going to misrepresent, as it always tends to do, people on this side of the chamber by suggesting that we are not concerned about the interests of those people who need government assistance, those people who in a humane society need the backing of government because they are not able to fend for themselves. I am certain that the men and women of Australia, the people of this country, will reject absolutely, as they quite often do, the claims by the Government that the Opposition is not sincere, that it does not have the interests of the people of Australia at heart. While I do not dispute that there are lots and lots of people in need of social security benefits-the record of the Fraser-Anthony Government stands for itself, it is an excellent record and I commend it-I believe that the current ballooning of expenditure and fraud is fast reaching plague proportions. There are already signs throughout the country that people have had enough. The current situation does absolutely nothing to encourage thrift and self-reliance, and is fast approaching a limit that is unfair and unreasonable for the community to continue to provide, not to say unaffordable. Something positive must be done to reverse this situation, and I commend the Government to adopt the Opposition's attitudes in this area. One thing that we should look at is the dole and the way in which the dole is paid to unemployed people. I would very strongly support the principle of work value or education courses before people are eligible for the dole. The community's concern at the growing social security crisis could be no more clearly illustrated than by Press reports during April in Queensland calling for a re-examination of the supporting parent's benefit. The support for the Queensland Minister for Welfare Services, Mrs Yvonne Chapman, over this issue interestingly enough has been overwhelming. The facts of this matter are quite simple: Payouts under the supporting parent's benefit cost the taxpayers $25.2m per week, and some 168,000 single parents receive this benefit annually at a cost, I understand, coming up next year of something like $1,200m. Can we afford this expenditure? The cost to the Australian taxpayer for this benefit has mushroomed by well over 600 per cent in the past 10 years. In Queensland alone the cost in 1984-85 was nearly $200m, and the points raised by Mrs Chapman are extremely pertinent. There are indeed quite a number of unmarried mothers who are now receiving supporting parent's benefits to which they have no legal right. No one knows the exact number of women in this category. Of course, many women who receive the supporting parent benefit are entitled to it under the present guidelines. But, unfortunately, the system is once again being ripped off. I wish to draw to the attention of the House an article in the Canberra Times of 11 December 1985 under the headline `Nine-month confinement follows bogus baby case'. It refers to a case of a 38-year-old woman, a mother of six children, who was sentenced to six months gaol for a $60,000 social security fraud. The magistrate, referring to this lady, is reported as follows: `This lady has worked the system beautifully and I find it very difficult not to gaol her'. He said she had displayed `calculated deception'. An officer for the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions told the court that in addition to claiming for her own six children the defendant had invented three other children and claimed in her sister's name as well as her own for a family allowance and supporting parent benefit for up to 14 years. She claimed under three names-her own, that of her sister Christine, and under her de facto married name. Her reply was: I've just been plain stupid and thought I would not get caught. Those are the sorts of matters that should be picked up and investigated by this Government. How many such cases have not yet come to light? Following the announcement of her statement regarding welfare payments to unmarried mothers, Mrs Chapman's office was contacted by numerous people who provided the names of single mothers living fraudulently on taxpayers' money. Since she made the initial comments Mrs Chapman has received over 5,000 telephone calls. Fewer than 20 people have contacted her to complain about her statement. The Minister for Social Security quite wrongly accused Mrs Chapman on 10 April of pushing reactionary and conservative attitudes. But the people of Australia, the people of Queensland, and the people of the State electorate of Pine Rivers in Queensland reject absolutely the false assertions of the Minister for Social Security in this area. We do not oppose assistance going to people who are entitled to it. But I repeat that we are opposed to the present open cheque book mentality of this Government. The Courier-Mail in Brisbane ran a special phone-in line regarding Mrs Chapman's comments. Eighty per cent of those who contacted the newspaper supported her. The comments reported in the newspaper are quite clear. One was: Good on you Mrs Chapman. It is about time someone called white white and black black. I am on your side. Another was: Each individual in this country has the right to live as he or she chooses. However, every action is followed by a consequence, and usually a responsibility. I believe that if a single woman has a baby, that is strictly between herself and the father of her child. The responsibility for the financial support of that child should not fall upon any taxpayer. Mrs Chapman did not say that women should not get the supporting parent benefit for the first child. What she said was that, after a moratorium of 12 months, the supporting parent benefit benefit should not be paid for a second or subsequent child. Mrs Chapman's views do not affect deserted or divorced wives. What she said, and indeed what the Government is now belatedly saying, is that the parents and the fathers of those children should be pursued to obtain the necessary payments so that the cost and the burden does not continue to fall upon the Australian taxpayer. It is important to note that the Government is now moving in this area. For once I find myself in agreement with the Minister. I would like to compliment him for trying to make sure that in future people who bring children into the world are responsible for their upkeep. I also want to talk about the situation regarding work value for the dole. This should not be considered as being in opposition to young people. If we had work value, we would encourage those who do not want to work to get off the dole. If they have to work for the dole, they might as well get a job with higher pay which would be the case from paid employment. Work value would also help those who want to work. It would help them to keep and improve their work skills and would restore self-respect and dignity. I have spoken to unemployed people, older people and people at community youth support schemes. I have yet to find someone opposed to this idea. The community would benefit because the work value would go into sporting clubs and service organisations in the same way as the community service alternative helps people in Queensland who are not able to pay fines. A humane society will always give a fair go to people in need. We need a fair social welfare system in Australia and we on this side of the House will continue to strive for it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(10.50) —We have heard from the previous speaker, the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper), the same tired old speech that we have learned to expect when he gets to his feet. I heard one of his colleagues from the National Party of Australia, the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron), on the radio today. I feel somewhat depressed when I listen to the sorts of comments made by the previous speaker. But honourable members should get hold of the transcript and read what the honourable member for Maranoa said on radio today. He made me even more depressed. Surely there must be great differences between members in the coalition because I just do not believe that all coalition members share the views of the honourable member for Maranoa and others who support his views. When there are some problems in the community, some weakening of employment opportunities or some crisis within our society, it is always those who are weak and those least able to defend themselves who become the subject of onslaught from people such as the previous speaker and the honourable member for Maranoa. If it is not Aborigines or single parents, it is unemployed kids. They always attack those who are not able to protect themselves from the problems that we face in our broader society. I want to take a few moments to talk about the mover and the seconder of the amendment, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) and the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White). Those two people have not read the Bill, do not understand the portfolio with which we are dealing or, because they know that our performance is so superior to that of the previous Government in this area, have decided to avoid talking about the Bill and to talk about everything else but what is in it. They talked about pensions and unemployment and what should happen-or what they think should happen. They said that young people should be forced to live at home. The implication was that, even if they were getting a hard time from their parents, they should be forced to stay at home. They said that women should be forced to stay in marital situations in which they are belted and bashed and should not be allowed to move out of those situations. They talked about housing and the record of this Government. I will come to all of those points in my comments. Mr Beale —You won't have much luck on housing. Mr HAND —I will have plenty of luck on housing, old timer. The honourable member does not need to worry about that. He need not worry about our record on housing. I will keep that subject till last because it is so good. I will keep the honourable member sitting there in silence for a change instead of yapping away as he normally does when someone is trying to make a point. Let us look at the previous Government's record-the record of these men and women of compassion, these people who have decided that they have suddenly discovered poverty and hardship within our society. The honourable member for Maranoa has just entered the chamber, just returned from his radio interview in which he said some of the most outrageous things about women and children in situations in which they find themselves. Mr Ian Cameron —I was only telling you blokes a few home truths. Mr HAND —If he will just be quiet, he might learn something. Opposition members are now claiming to be compassionate towards poor people. We heard them talk on the adjournment last night about the poor. But I will tell honourable members what the previous Government did for the poor. There was a fall in real terms of 34.7 per cent in the additional pension for children when the previous Government was in office. The mother's and guardian's allowance fell by 34.7 per cent. Rent assistance fell by 2.1 per cent. The adult unemployment benefit rate fell by 18.6 per cent. The junior unemployment benefit rate fell by 45.6 per cent when the Liberal-National Party Government was in office. Those people now pretend to care about the poor. What happened to the numbers of unemployed? In 1980, 311,000 people were unemployed in this country. When the previous Government went out of office that figure had doubled. Mr Ian Cameron —It's gone up 200,000 since April. Mr HAND —The previous Government created a crisis in this community unheard of and unseen before. The former Government created no new employment. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Maranoa will cease interjecting. The honourable member for Melbourne will be heard in silence. Mr HAND —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. He is not talking to someone he thinks he can stand over in this place as he was this morning. When this Government came into office we had a crisis in this country which was unequalled. No jobs had been created and there was double the amount of unemployment. The previous Government doubled unemployment and slashed the real value of benefits that people were receiving. For God's sake, honourable members opposite come into this chamber and start to lecture us about compassion and what we ought to be doing. Once again the Opposition has latched on to an issue which it knows will turn over people in the community. Honourable members opposite have set about undermining the rights of people who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in certain situations. That is the disturbing thing. There will always be someone who will rort the system. No-one is disputing that. But to turn the blowtorch on everybody in that situation is to infer that everybody in that situation is deceiving the community and ripping off the system. If we want to talk about rip-off merchants, for God's sake, let us have a look at what went on under the previous Government. Let us look at all the rorts that went on in the tax system under the previous Government. We have not heard a whimper from honourable members opposite. We cannot get one cent of that money back. Mr Hodgman —Have a look at your own front bench. Mr HAND —The honourable member for Denison knows, as he was a Minister in the previous Government, the rorts that went on. We tried to make legislation retrospective so that we could drag money out of these rip-off merchants but honourable members opposite said `No way', because they are their mates. They always protect their mates-the wealthy and the privileged. But when it comes to some poor person living in a high rise estate or on a housing commission estate in their electorates they kick them in the guts every chance that they get and they brand the whole lot of them. I hope that they read the speeches of honourable members opposite because then they will know what honourable members opposite are about. Yesterday the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) came into this chamber, stood at the dispatch box, and spoke about the Opposition's promises to primary industry. No-one is disputing-I am certainly not because I come from a rural background originally and that is why I probably understand the lack of mentality of honourable members opposite a little better than most-that there is poverty in the rural areas. We are justified in giving assistance to the poor and to those people who find themselves in hard times due to climatic conditions. I support all that. But for God's sake, the Opposition is suggesting that we should tip $6 billion to $8 billion into the rural industry with no trouble at all. We are one-upping one another all the time. Members of the Liberal Party of Australia offer a 10-point package and out comes the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) and he offers an 11-point package. Away they go. The Opposition has no trouble offering $6 billion to $8 billion assistance to the rural industry. But when it comes to the poverty levels of single mothers and children living in incredible poverty the Opposition has all the trouble in the world. It will not allow those people to get out of the rut that they are in. It is about condemning and reinforcing the class situation in this country. `Keep them poor, keep them ignorant but look after our mates and rip-off the system' is what this Opposition is really about. Everybody in the community ought to read what the members of the Opposition say about it. Let us have a look again at what happened under the previous Government. Honourable members opposite can make anything in this country popular if they go out and work at it long enough, and that includes kicking the poor. If they talk up a situation and tell as many lies as they do then of course they can make it an issue in the community. But they cannot go into the community and state that everybody on benefits is a crook and that is what they are doing. The honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) stood up in this chamber showing us headline after headline and reading quote after quote but what good does that do for the kids such as those who were out on the front steps of Parliament House yesterday? It does not do them any good at all. The honourable members should come to the high rise flats and the housing estates in Melbourne and start talking like that. People there do not want to know about that. They want to know how they can improve their lifestyle and look after their kids. That is what they want to do. Honourable members opposite have helped to create this society because they are older than those kids I have mentioned. It is about time that they accepted a bit of responsibility for the mess which they created and for the future of those kids. It started a long time ago. Why do we not approach it this way and say that 800,000 children are living in poverty in this country? Mr Beale —There were 700,000 yesterday. Mr HAND —Who said that? Mr Beale —That is what you said. Mr HAND —I never said that at all. Read the Hansard when it comes out, you fool, and you will understand. The honourable member should get back to his book. Eight hundred thousand is the figure that is quoted by the experts of children who are living below the poverty line. Do honourable members opposite think that that is proper and right? Mr Ian Cameron —You are the Government. Mr HAND —We are trying to do something about it and I will come to that now. The Fraser-Howard Government was in office in the period 1976 to 1983. Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish I could get some protection from the Chair from this imbecile. Mr Beale —Mr Deputy Speaker, I really object to the honourable member for Melbourne referring to the honourable member for Maranoa as an imbecile and I ask you for a withdrawal of the remark. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —The honourable member for Melbourne will withdraw. Mr HAND —Is the word `imbecile' offensive? If it is, I will withdraw it; but, Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek your protection and I ask people not to annoy you so that I can be protected. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) is 18 inches taller than me and somewhat threatening. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —One of the difficulties I have is protecting others from the honourable member for Melbourne, so it is difficult when he then asks for protection. Mr HAND —There is a whole 8 1/2 stone of me up against this lot. I will win every fight too because I am right. Let us look at what happened to disposable incomes under the previous Government and what is happening now. A sole parent with two children suffered a reduction of 8.8 per cent under the previous Government. Under Labor this figure has increased and improved and it is now plus 7.4 per cent. Under the former Government the income for a married couple with two children fell by 4.6 per cent. Under this Government disposable income has gone ahead by 6.6 per cent in disposable income levels. As I said earlier, the unemployment benefit for single persons-these kids that honourable members opposite care so much about-fell in value by 45.6 per cent under the previous Government and their disposable income fell by 17 per cent. Under this Government that figure has been improved by 18.1 per cent. Mr Ian Cameron —Tell us about interest rates. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Maranoa will cease interjecting. Mr HAND —The point I am trying to make amid the interjections of a person, whom I would like to call a certain thing which I am not allowed to call him, is that it is quite clear that honourable members opposite created this society that we now find ourselves in. They started the rot in unemployment. They started the rot in terms of denying young people work. Honourable members opposite have caused incredible poverty in this country and now we are trying to fix it up. Let me touch briefly on housing. I ask the shadow Minister for Housing and Construction, the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), to look at the record of the previous Government. We have in excess of a 100 per cent improvement in terms of real spending compared with what the previous Government spent. That is not a bad record in three years. We have tipped in over 100 per cent of what the previous Government tipped in. Most people would think that that is a reasonable performance to increase something by in excess of 100 per cent. The shadow Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), came into this chamber to talk about welfare and all he talked about was the military. I suppose he has a vested interest. He got out of the military for obvious reasons and he came to this Parliament and talked about that. We are talking about social security, not about the military. He made a couple of comments about housing and away he went. I have many things that I would like to say. There are a number of Press reports that I think ought to be recorded and I might have to do something about them on another day or during the Committee stage. Spokesperson after spokesperson on the other side has made it clear-- Mr Slipper —Spokespersons? Mr HAND —It is better than calling them spokesmen which is what the honourable member normally does. He forgets his colleague. I try to respect her presence in the chamber. Spokesperson after spokesperson in the Opposition has launched attack after attack on the unemployed, the single mums and the kids. Anybody in receipt of benefits has come under criticism. Yesterday a Queensland member, the honourable member for McPherson, called for the abolition of dole payments to under 18-year-olds. That is one example. Then we had the honourable member for Deakin-- Mr Beale —The beacon from Deakin. Mr HAND —I know that the honourable member gets a bit of a glow up at times but I did not know it was the beacon. The honourable member proposes a savage cut in Federal spending, the abolition of first child family allowances-I am saying this slowly so that it can be recorded and sent to everybody in the honourable member's electorate-the elimination of public housing grants, tightened eligibility for unemployment benefits, and the list goes on. Those are the honourable member's recommendations. I guess this is best summed up by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) for whom one must have some sympathy. We had the wets and the dries and now we have the uglies in New South Wales. The uglies are a group of people who have been infiltrating the Liberal Party in New South Wales. They are led by some people who are described in newspaper cuttings and records as quizzlings from Yugoslavia. These people have taken over the Liberal Party in the Leader of the Opposition's State and they are inflicting their conservative views on the Leader of the Opposition. What has he got to do? He has to cut, cut, cut, and that is the sort of thing that the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) does. Does the honourable member understand what I am saying? That is what he is suggesting. I am sure that the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) does not support the views of the uglies in New South Wales. Their attacks on the poor have become legendary. The Leader of the Opposition has no choice but to go along with the uglies. There are honourable members who know who those uglies are and what they represent; they have fought against them. They have fought against the principles those people express within branches of the Liberal Party. That is why we have this conservative thrust by the Opposition. The honourable member for Denison, the honourable member for Goldstein and other people who have some compassion-some have more than others-reject the uglies and the National Party of Australia line expressed by Heckle and Jeckle who sit opposite. I put it to the House that the philosophy under which the Opposition operates is to attack the weak and therefore be on a winner. Opposition members believe that by attacking the weak they will build up the polls and get up a head of steam. However, to divide the community, city versus rural, white against black, those on benefits against those who work-it is a system of divide and rule-is a dangerous approach to take in life. What we all ought to do is try to work together to improve the lot of those people who are in this situation, not attack them. One can be critical of programs: One can ask that they be improved in terms of one's views but one should not do so because it does not achieve anything, least of all for those people in that situation. It does not improve their situation by branding them, which, I point out, not every Opposition member does. The way to approach the issue is to have a little compassion, less talk and more action in terms of how we can look after these people. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(11.09) —The last couple of minutes of the speech by the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) were very interesting indeed. They are words which we have all heard many times in our respective party rooms and they are worthy of note. I must say that up until that stage of his speech I wondered very much what his speech was about. He spent most of his time talking about alleged deficiencies of the Fraser Government in the social welfare area. Time will not allow me to go into a detailed rebuttal of that today but one could not help but be curious about why he spent so little time talking about his own Government's program. It may be because the honourable member has a view in relation to poverty under the Hawke Government but that view is not welcome to members of his Government. Nevertheless, his sincerity cannot be doubted. I will return to the Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill. It is a very large Bill covering many sections and no honourable member has been able to deal with any significant number of sections. Time for the debate is limited and along with other speakers I intend to confine myself to a specific area of the Bill. The area that has given the greatest public concern is the granting of amnesties to people who are receiving social security payments to which they are not entitled. I refer first of all to the specific information that is given in relation to the amnesty in the explanatory note tabled by the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) when he introduced this legislation. The explanatory note states: Clause 45 (1) deals with the case of a person who fails to comply with an obligation under the Act to notify the occurrence of an event or a change in circumstances. The note further states that as a result of this amendment: . . . the person will not be guilty of a criminal offence under the Act and will not be liable to refund any overpayment made to the person. An example of such a case is where a person claims a supporting parent's benefit and is properly granted that benefit, but the person subsequently marries or enters into a de facto relationship and fails to notify that fact. . . . Clause 45 (2) deals with the case of a person who makes a false statement (i.e. misrepresents the person's circumstances). Where such a person subsequently voluntarily informs the Department of Social Security between 12 February 1986 and 31 May 1986, and the person is still in receipt of a social security payment, the person will not be guilty of a criminal offence under the Act and will not be liable to refund any overpayment. However, this will only be so where the misrepresentation was not deliberate, in cases where the misrepresentation resulted in the payment being made or the payment being made at a higher rate. I contrast what is said in the memorandum with the speech the Minister made at the time he introduced the Bill and tabled that explanatory statement. The Minister stated: The amnesty only applies to people who have omitted to do something-that is, they failed to advise a change of financial or other circumstances. It has been specifically designed for people on the `treadmill'. I point out that the Bill does more than apply to people who have omitted to do something. The quote that I have just given from the explanatory note also deals with a person who makes a false statement, that is, misrepresents his or her circumstances. The Minister continued: In effect, these people want to set the record straight, surrender the payment completely, or have the rate corrected downwards. However, they have been afraid to come forward in the past because they fear prosecution or having to repay the amount overpaid to them. The amnesty allows these people to get off the `treadmill' without fear of repercussions. It is worth emphasising that the amnesty is for `treadmill' cases-not those deliberately cheating the system. The amnesty will have two main consequences. I will come to them in a minute. There has been much emphasis by Government speakers about the social security recipients who are on the treadmill. From time to time one reads in the newspapers of cases where people have inadvertently received overpayments and the Department of Social Security is proceeding to recover them. On the basis of the stories one reads in the newspaper it would seem that sometimes there is a good case for not being too hard on the recipient. In other cases one sees that there is a very good case for being hard on the recipient. When the honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh) spoke yesterday she made a statement that I found a little startling. Unfortunately, I do not have a copy of yesterday's Daily Hansard-I understand that it is not available yet-so I cannot look at her actual words and specifically quote her. However, I understood her to say at the time that all honourable members have had the experience of people who are on the treadmill coming into their office and saying: `Please help me. How do I get off?' As I recall, the honourable member for Phillip then went on to give an example of someone who had recently been to her office. That may be so but I can only honestly state that in the 12 years that I have been a member of parliament with large constituency work-I include when I was a senator-and notably very high female constituency work, I have never once had someone come to me and say: `I am receiving a pension payment which I fear I am not entitled to. Would you please give me some help in getting out from under what I think is looming ahead of me?' I am not saying that it does not happen. I am saying that it has never happened in my case. I have consulted a number of my colleagues who tell me that they have had the same experience as I have had. It may be that some members have had experience of a number of people coming to them in that position, and believe that it is therefore a widespread occurrence. However, if others were to judge on the basis of their experiences, they would say that it never happens. Thus, one cannot make the type of generalisation made by the honourable member for Phillip yesterday. It will only be when the results of the amnesty are known that we will have any sort of quantification of the numbers of people who genuinely made a mistake in the information they originally gave in relation to their circumstances or who, because they had forgotten they had certain obligations, overlooked informing the Department of changes in their circumstances and therefore a change in their entitlement to the benefit they were receiving. I return to the Minister's second reading speech. He further stated: The amnesty will have two main consequences. First, future outlays will be reduced because people who come forward between 12 February 1986 and 31 May 1986 under the amnesty will cease to receive payment or will be paid their correct entitlement in the future. Second, correcting the record in these cases will allow resources to be better targeted on the prevention, detection and recovery of overpayments in deliberate fraud cases. Without wishing to be overly cynical, there is a third benefit: Pressure is temporarily taken off the Department of Social Security-a pressure outlined in detail in the most recent Auditor-General's report, which is a damning indictment of the attitudes, procedures and attention to duty of sections of the Department of Social Security to its legal obligations under the Act to detect and pursue overpayment and fraud. I shall come to that in a minute, too. At this stage I freely admit that the overpayments of social security are a problem to all governments, be they Liberal or Labor. In fact, Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, when she was Minister, and Senator Fred Chaney, when he was Minister, were, I believe, vigorous in their attempts to find ways to prevent overpayment and fraud. Nevertheless, it happened and there were scandals from time to time in the term of the Fraser Government. There have been many Auditor-General's reports over the years, of both Liberal and Labor governments, which have been critical of administrative procedures in relation to detection and recovery of overpayments of social security and, indeed, in other types of overpayments. It is a problem that will always be with us, I suspect, human nature being what it is. That does not mean that an amnesty is the answer. My personal suspicion is that the number of people who come forward under the amnesty and can prove genuineness will not be significant. In his second reading speech the Minister says that future outlays will be reduced, but he does not quantify them. At this stage I refer briefly, as time is short, to the statement made by the Minister in the House on 12 February 1986, in which he announced the amnesty. He stated: . . . new moves by the Government . . . to significantly reduce social security overpayments and to further improve the administration of pensions, benefits and allowances. There is no proof of significant reduction; there is no significant estimate. Such estimates as are given in the Minister's statement and in other statements made by Government members give no indication of the basis of their quantifications. With all the publicity given to this subject in recent months-there are estimates by the police of up to $300m being overpaid or improperly paid annually-nobody can truly quantify the actual amount. Further, the significance for the administration of pensions, benefits and allowances so far as this Act is concerned, escapes me. It may be that there are other administrative procedures which the Minister had in mind when he said that, but which are not part of this actual measure. The Minister went on in his 12 February statement to say: Over the past three years this Government has taken a number of steps to reform the Australian social security system, and to ensure that it is more truly and more accurately needs based. These steps include moves to reduce overpayments-actions such as the transfer of some two million payments from cheques to direct deposit, and the introduction of much stricter proof of identity procedures. These and other moves are starting to prove very effective. The net level of overpayments detected by my Department last financial year fell below $20m. I turn to the Auditor-General's report and the facts that that report reveals as to the actual efficiency and ability of the Department last year to detect overpayments. The report to which I refer is the Auditor-General's report of March 1986. Shortage of time means that I will not be able to quote at length from the section on the Department of Social Security. The relevant pages are 118 to 126. I recommend them as serious reading to anybody who has an interest in reducing fraud against the public purse to see just what the possibilities are. In the time available I shall try to highlight the areas most significant to today's debate. In relation to pension entitlement reviews, referred to as PERs, the Auditor-General states: The audit of invalid pensions in Victoria and the audits of other pension type systems in other regional offices revealed significant arrears Australia-wide in the conduct of these reviews . . . Instances were found where age pension records did not have an automatic review date and reviews of age pensioners' assets had not been programmed. In regard to the arrears in PERs, State Administrations in Victoria and Western Australia advised that PERs were suspended during the introduction of the assets test in order to minimise confusion through forwarding more than one questionnaire to pensioners within a short period. One could understand that there could have been some confusion if more than one questionnaire was forwarded, but surely this increased the chances of overpayment and should have been included as an administrative cost of the introduction of the assets test. The report further states: Audit expressed its concern to the Department's Central Office as to the unsatisfactory national situation on reviews and sought comments as follows: confirmation that all suspended review cases were retained in the PER system and will be actioned by early 1986 action intended to be taken on any resultant underpayments or overpayments national policy and procedures relating to the review or field officer visit requirements for supporting parent beneficiaries, and national policy and procedures relating to age pensioners' assets reviews. In responding the Department has advised that: suspended review cases would be reviewed either under a new annual review system or during 1986 and thereafter subject to existing PER procedures. Let us understand that pension entitlement reviews experienced a significant hiatus. It continues: upon resumption of the reviews it is proposed to adjust the rate of pension and either recover overpayments or pay arrears where necessary. It should be pointed out that, at the time the Auditor-General was having this communication with the Department, the amnesty had not been announced. It was prior to that. Thus, prior to the announcement of an amnesty, the Department advised that it proposed to adjust the rate of pensions and either recover overpayments or pay arrears where necessary. Therefore, as a result of a government decision not to send out the review questionnaires at the same time as the one necessary for the assets test, genuine cases of inadvertence would arise-the Department was not, at the time it communicated this to the Auditor-General, proposing any sort of humanitarian action towards those overpayments. The Department's advice continued: review of supporting parents' benefits is now undertaken in accordance with regular PER procedures and through other aspects of the Department's review mechanisms, and the eligibility of pensioners who are subject to the assets test or who are income tested and have assessable assets within $20 000 of the threshold limit is to be reviewed annually. I interpolate that I hope that the Department, which shows such vigour in following up on the assets test provisions for those who show themselves to be within $20,000 of the threshold limit, will show the same sort of vigour as the Auditor-General suggested it ought to be showing towards unemployment benefit recipients. The Department's sloppy approach to and co-ordination with Commonwealth Employment Service offices, its poor attempts to establish the basic information that should be on every applicant's file during the process of assessment of eligibility and the lack of attempts to pursue information available to it are all detailed in the Auditor-General's report to which I have referred. Since time is running out, I give just one further quote which illustrates what I have been saying. In relation to an audit of overpayments-in a section headed `Overpayments' and sub-headed `Delays in recovering overpayments'-the Auditor-General reported: The audit in Victoria found that in many cases delays in the order of five months occurred before recovery action was taken. Audit examinations in Western Australia also disclosed that the system for following-up overpayments (the suspected overpayments system), being piloted in that State and referred to in the September 1985 report- that is, the September 1985 Auditor-General's report- was not operating satisfactorily. It was found that reports from the system were incomplete and inaccurate because, in many instances, suspected overpayments were not being input at the time of detection. Audit also noted coding errors, ineffective follow-up of outstanding cases (some in excess of 13 weeks), and other operating deficiencies. These results raise doubts as to whether all overpayments have been brought promptly to account and actioned in that State. That paragraph from the Auditor-General's report is, I believe, a damning indictment of the Department. Other sections of the report refer to the effect of industrial action in increasing the risk of overpayments. There is also reference to the slackness of the Department, following industrial action, in following the procedures that it should in order to ascertain how that industrial action had affected overpayments. All this and more are in the report. Frankly, after reading the Auditor-General's report, one really has a different view on the amnesty. If there are genuine people in this position-I imagine there are some-they will be able to get off the treadmill. In the future there will be no excuse. The future measures the Minister outlined in his statement on the subject-such as letters going out every six months-are welcome. That will be costly, but it is appropriate and there will be no excuse of inadvertence from then on. However, after reviewing all the facts, the speeches and the Auditor-General's report, I have come to the conclusion that the greatest beneficiary of this amnesty is the Department of Social Security. It has an opportunity to wipe clean the slate, to have a let-out next time around from that sort of Auditor-General's report. The Department will be able to say: `That is all past tense, because we have had the amnesty. Now, of course, we will do better'. Unfortunately every Auditor-General's report gives examples of the Department saying how it is reviewing its procedures and how everything will be hunky-dory in the future. Personally, after 12 years, I have become a bit cynical. I suggest to Government members that they should not get to carried away with their enthusiasm for the amnesty. They might take a close look at the Auditor-General's report in, say, 12 or 18 months time. I think we will be reading the same story as we have prior to the amnesty; that is, sloppy administration by people who ought to take some responsibility for their lack of action and lack of professionalism in allowing the overpayments ever to happen on such a scale. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(11.28) —I thank those who have made a contribution to the debate on the Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill. I want to comment generally on some of the principal points that have been made, particularly by the Opposition and initially by the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), who is the Opposition's spokesman in this area. Once again on an important occasion, during a debate within this Parliament on social security policy, the honourable member for Richmond has forgone his opportunity to debate the policy questions which undoubtedly underlie the legislation. Quite contrary to what the honourable member for Richmond has suggested, the Government and I are interested in developing a comprehensive and consistent overall approach to social security policy. Indeed, since I have been the Minister the major objective that I have set myself has been to ensure that there is a review of some of the central tenets of social security policy. To that end, the Government has put in train a review of social security policy which will be carried out by the Department, with the assistance of Associate Professor Cass from the University of Sydney, the Social Welfare Research Centre at the University of New South Wales and a small number of additional consultants. Essentially the review will be a departmental review but it will go to some of the central aspects of social security policy-the area of family income support, which has been referred to by a number of honourable members in the chamber during this debate; the whole area of social security in the labour market, again an area on which the Opposition has some views although one would have thought that those views were somewhat ill-developed at this stage; and lastly the area of retirement incomes policy, ensuring in particular that our approach to superannuation fits well with our approach to retirement incomes. So policy is of a pre-eminent concern. I have to say again that I am disappointed that the Opposition has consistently shown no interest in the development of social security policy. It is rare indeed that a question is asked or a speech is made either within this Parliament or outside the Parliament from which we can get any clear understanding of what the Opposition's alternative approach might be not only to economic policy but also in this case to crucial areas of social policy. That is unfortunate. It is primarily the duty of an opposition to enter into debate on government policy, and the sad thing about the current Opposition is that it is so divided internally, factionally, that it is unable to put together coherent statements on anything, let alone the difficult area of social security policy. Having said that, I appreciate the continuing contributions made by the Opposition with regard to questions of management and administration. Certainly it is important that we have in the Parliament opportunities to make some judgments about the administration of various departments. I have noted that the honourable member for Richmond says publicly what he apparently does not say privately-that he believes that there is a problem of morale within the Department of Social Security, that there is insecurity and so on and that the Department is not, if you like, in the best of shape. I think that any large department, such as the Department of Social Security, which administers a system on the scale of the system we have in Australia clearly will have within it particular areas in which there will be problems that need to be addressed. The particular area that seems to be a continuing preoccupation of the Opposition is this area of overpayments. That is important within the context of this Bill, which, as part of an overall approach to the question of overpayments, includes the legislative provisions which provide the basis for the amnesty currently in operation. It has been suggested that we need to have an amnesty because the Department of Social Security is not coping with the resources it has been given. It has also been suggested that we need an amnesty because we need to write off bad debts rather than provide adequate staff resources to address the problem and that the amnesty is not supported by officers in the Department of Social Security, the Australian Federal Police or by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). It has been suggested that I, as Minister for Social Security, am asking for a blank cheque to write off bad debts owing to the Department of Social Security. All of those assertions were made by the honourable member for Richmond in his contribution to the debate. Let me say that the Department of Social Security, like any other department, has to live within limited resource constraints. One of the things we all find puzzling about the Opposition is that it is led by a classical monetarist who publicly takes the most severe views about public spending, yet the Opposition is talking about additional expenditure as soon as it gets into office-whenever that may be, perhaps early in the next century-of somewhere between $6 billion and $10 billion. The honourable member for Richmond, who is a member of the National Party of Australia, has been part of what is presumably some sort of collective process that continues to imagine massive additional elements of expenditure, very few of which have any relationship at all to poverty and the greatest need. We hear all this bleating about the greatest need but when we hear about what the Opposition would do if it were in government we find that it wants to spend billions of dollars, and certainly not in the direction of reducing poverty within Australia. Of course there are resource constraints within the Department of Social Security, and there will continue to be resource constraints because this Government is determined to ensure that in terms of staffing resources we live within our means. That is not something we make an apology for. The reduction of overpayments has been a major area of priority since I have been the Minister for Social Security. I have sought to ensure that there are adequate resources in this area and that that there are increased resources in the area of the prevention of overpayments and fraud. But let me say that there will never be unlimited resources, which is why the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) suggested that to some extent areas such as overpayments have been a problem as long as there has been a social security system. There will always be limited resources to deal with this problem, which is the current situation. In terms of writing off bad debts, the amnesty effectively provides an opportunity, as I said in my second reading speech, for people who have failed to inform the Department of changed circumstances. By definition they are people whom the Department has limited knowledge about. By definition under the amnesty those people are encouraged to provide additional information which will enable the Department to set the record straight. Amnesties do not provide penalties or effectively they would not be amnesties. So it is not a question of writing off bad debts. It is a question of having people in the community identify themselves as people who need to provide the Department of Social Security with additional information. As a result of the amnesty we will not only achieve significant savings but also we will get a much better understanding of the circumstances in which overpayments occur, at least from a certain group of people. It is a nonsense to suggest that in terms of overpayments the amnesty is the whole of our strategy. It is an important part of the strategy but it is only one element of it. We have also sought to improve communication, which we referred to this week, primarily because for the first time the notices are going out in plain English. The whole presentation will substantially improve progressively over the next couple of years. That is an anti-overpayment strategy or has that element as part of it. In terms of reviews, I have read the Auditor-General's report and I understand the criticisms that have been made of the Department, some of which are not without foundation and need to be addressed. I have sought to ensure that its recommendations and judgments are progressively addressed by the Department of Social Security and that we achieve a better relationship and better co-ordination between the Department of Social Security and the Commonwealth Employment Service. I have sought to ensure that there are increased resources and greater effort with respect, not to reviewing everyone within the social security system, but to ensuring that there are targeted reviews which are more effective in achieving a reduction in overpayments. All those problems are being addressed. Let me make a couple of comments that I think are useful in terms of getting this matter into perspective. People who suggest that somehow in social security we are dealing with a problem of the scale of the taxation problem are talking absolute nonsense. As the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) has pointed out a number of times in this House, the real story-the official story, if you like-is that more than 90 per cent of all serious fraud investigated by the Federal Police is on the revenue side of the Budget. That is why I have referred again and again in debates such as this to the tax avoidance problem we inherited from the previous Government which was massive. I refer to the draft White Paper on `The Reform of the Australian Taxation System' of June 1985. It states: Accordingly, accurate measurements of the amount of tax revenue forgone through evasion practice is not possible but Tax Office estimates for 1984-85 suggest that income tax evasion may involve a revenue loss of at least $3 billion per annum. That is what one has to bear in mind when one talks about these two matters. On the one hand one is talking about a massive problem which afflicts our taxation system and which the Government is seeking to address and, on the other hand, a much more limited problem which constantly needs to be addressed and which we are seeking to do something about. A number of honourable members, including the honourable member for Richmond, have referred from time to time to the question of dob-ins. It is suggested that we need a Noah-type campaign in relation to overpayments. I have rejected that suggestion although I have never said that the Department is not bound-as it is bound-to investigate claims that are made to it about people who are defrauding the system. In regard to unemployment benefit dob-ins, in reviews reported since July 1985 the rate was reduced and or an overpayment was raised in 26 per cent of cases. Where there had been a dob-in the rate was increased in a number of cases. The rate was untouched in more than 70 per cent of cases. I say to the honourable member for Richmond and to Opposition members that, in a sense, in the social security area we are talking for the most part about people who are on extremely low incomes. Eighty per cent of all beneficiaries of supporting parent's benefit in this country have virtually no other income above their pensions. So we are talking about very low income people. If we create an atmosphere in the community that suggests that people ought to be dobbing in their neighbours-that is the kind of atmosphere that the honourable member for Richmond is seeking to create when he encourages dob-ins in this area-we will be setting neighbour against neighbour. We will be encouraging anyone who has something against someone else, whom they know is on social security benefits, to have that person investigated. In the vast majority of cases-more than 70 per cent of cases-the people who are subsequently investigated are receiving their correct payment, a payment to which they are entitled. So I reject the approach which has been suggested by a number of Opposition members. Those were the principal issues raised by the Opposition. Of course I reject the Opposition's amendment as it seeks to misrepresent what the amnesty is all about. The amendment does not reflect any serious policy consideration on the part of the Opposition. Despite the amount of time-disproportionate amount of time in my view-given by the Opposition to this issue, it does not suggest that Opposition members have got their views together in respect of the administration of the Department, and particularly overpayments. The Department of Social Security, given its scale and the massive increase in the number of beneficiaries-not in our Government's time but in the last 10 years as a result of unemployment and marriage separations-has sought to address the problem. I acknowledge that there are deficiencies that need to be rectified, and we have been progressively rectifying them. In this legislation the amnesty will provide one of the ways in which we can assist in developing a comprehensive strategy on overpayments. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. The Bill. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(11.47) —I move: (1) Clause 33, page 13, lines 20 to 30, omit proposed sub-section 133 (1), insert the following sub-section: `` `133. (1) Where a person is engaged, on a full-time basis, in a course of education at an educational institution, a benefit is not payable to the person in respect of any period during which- (a) a payment in respect of the person has been or may be made under a prescribed educational scheme; or (b) such a payment in respect of the person might have been made, or might be so made, but for- (i) the amount of any income or other support received by, or the amount of the assets of, the person or any other person; (ii) the fact that a period, before the end of which the person is not entitled to receive a payment under the scheme, has not elapsed; or (iii) the person's non-compliance with conditions upon which such a payment would be made, being conditions relating to the person's progress in the course of education or attendance at the educational institution.''. The Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill included in clause 33 a provision which was intended to prevent payment of unemployment, sickness or special benefit to a full time student who was eligible in principle for an education allowance. This was consistent with the introduction of the new young homeless allowance from 1 July 1986. As mentioned in the second reading speech, the provision reflects the policy that students who are ineligible in principle for an educational allowance should look to and be covered by educational allowances rather than what are primarily work force related benefits paid under the Social Security Act. For technical reasons related to structure of the various educational allowances, it has been established that proposed clause 33 did not achieve the stated purpose. The amendment gives effect to the intentions outlined during the second reading speech. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(11.49) —I intend to speak mainly in relation to the Bill as a whole, although obviously the amendments are before the Committee. I wish to point out to the people of Australia that this is the third major debate in the last two days where the Government has effectively gagged some of its own members and some of the Opposition members who wished to speak in second reading debates. I simply draw attention to the fact that the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) and the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) were ready to speak-- Mr Howe —I raise a point of order. It is my understanding that, as I had not originally moved the proposed measure, and as it was moved by the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) on my behalf, it was open to another member to rise. He did not take that opportunity. CHAIRMAN-Order! There is no point of order. Mr HODGMAN —The Minister knows very well what has transpired. The plain fact is that time would have been taken on a division the result of which was obvious. The Minister knows exactly what I am getting at. I am not surprised that he did not want to hear the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) and the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) speak. I am surprised that the Minister determined to gag the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) and the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous). I want to speak principally on clause 45 of the Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill, the provision dealing with the amnesty. Before I turn specifically to it, I quote a most interesting sentence which is very relevant to consideration of the amnesty provision because it indicates the thinking of this Minister and the Hawke socialist Government. My colleague, the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges), referred to the quotation earlier. Before we turn to clause 45 I want honourable members to consider this statement that is on the record in this Parliament by this Minister. He said: There is no difference in principle between a legally married but permanently separated person and a person who is not married. That is a most revealing admission by this Government; that it has no interest at all in recovering from those who ought to be paying part of the bill now carried by the taxpayers. The amnesty is put forward by the Minister and by the Hawke socialist Government as being, in his own words, a major part of reducing overpayments in social security. The Minister said that most of the areas of fraud that he is aware of related to the revenue side, and he cited the figure of $3 billion and was referring principally to tax evasion and avoidance. The Government suffers from acute shortsightedness on that matter. I say in passing that there are some much closer to home in this Parliament on the Government front bench who perhaps should be looked at a bit more closely. Mr Hand —You supported tax avoidance. Mr HODGMAN —What the Minister did not admit-and the honourable member for Melbourne should be interested in this-is that on the expenditure side the Government has been told that there could be an overpayment in the social security system of anything up to $1 billion. For the Minister just to cast that aside and say that the main concern is on the revenue aspect is to overlook a potential overpayment of $1 billion in outlays that amount to $19 billion. Therefore, an overpayment of $1 billion is something of which the Minister should not be proud. If the Hawke socialist Government were running social security as a private company, I suggest that each and every one of the directors, and the Minister as the managing director, would be behind bars. What is the difference between a failure to disclose and a deliberately false disclosure? That is the distinction that is drawn in the amnesty provision. That provision is drawn in such a way that everybody is entitled to it, except somebody who works for the Department of Social Security. It is like a raffle, a golden-casket lottery, in that everybody can be in it except somebody who is an officer or is otherwise employed in the Department. The Minister in his second reading speech or in answer to the honourable member for Petrie or to me did not say what he believes the Government intends to save in revenues or to recover in overpayments through the amnesty provision. Mr Howe —All will become known. Mr HODGMAN —When will it become known? I have to put it to the Minister bluntly that this is a massive confidence trick. He has not put before the Parliament any material to show that the amnesty will recover one cent. In fact, I suggest that the way it has been drawn up is about as practical as selling refrigerators to Eskimos. The really guilty ones will not be encouraged to come forward because of the exclusion of the false information. Those included are those who omitted-this is what the Minister said-to provide information. When we asked the Minister for examples-the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) has pointed this out-he gave us, in a meek and mild manner, the example of somebody who has been obtaining a supporting mother's benefit and has got married in the meantime and not bothered to tell the Department. Mr Hodges —Blatant cheats. Mr HODGMAN —I have to say, as the honourable member for Petrie has said, that it is blatant. I think the Government and the Minister are schizophrenic in relation to social security, and I will tell them why. They are, on the one hand, tough, ruthless and cruel in relation to those who are least able to defend themselves. I refer to the elderly, the grandparents of Australia, upon whom they have launched a savage attack by the introduction of the vicious Hawke assets test which includes assets such as gold fillings. On the other hand, they are weak and acquiescent in relation to those who are ripping off the system to the extent of $1 billion. The Minister did not even mention that fact in his second reading speech; nor did he mention it in his reply to the second reading debate. He talked about tax evasion and $3 billion. I, and every member of the House, would condemn this practice whether it has been committed by people outside this Parliament or people inside this Parliament, including people who sit on the Government's front bench. I say to the Minister that he should not ignore the expenditure aspects or pass them over. Why is it that he has hounded small farmers, ex-servicemen, soldier settlers, off their properties? Why does he continue to hound the elderly, those who are least able to defend themselves? The Minister's words of wisdom on this matter in this Parliament today will not cut any ice with them. The amnesty is a fraud. The distinction between non-disclosure and false disclosure is a contrived distinction which will have the effect of ensuring that many people who should otherwise be encouraged to come forward will simply not come forward. The worst offenders escape the amnesty net. The worst offenders will get off scot free. The Minister cannot even say what is the amount of revenue likely to be recovered. Added to that, he does not even ensure the recovery of the amount evaded. He will no doubt say that clause 45, relating to the amnesty, is a quid pro quo and the money is paid up. I do not know how the Minister can maintain that position in the face of the Auditor-General's report and the comments about Victoria and Western Australia. Quite frankly, it absolutely appals me that he should say such nonsense in the House at the same time as his Department wastes thousands, if not millions, of dollars each year on writing letters such as the one sent to one of my pensioner constituents in South Hobart recently which stated that her pension had been altered by 50c a week. The cost of the administration in that matter greatly exceeded the amount of the variation. The Minister's hypocrisy is exposed when we read what was said in support of this clause in the second reading speech: In effect, these people want to set the record straight, surrender the payment completely, or have the rate corrected downwards. However, they have been afraid to come forward in the past because they fear prosecution or having to repay the amount overpaid to them. Why should they not repay that amount? Why should not the fathers and others in this community who have legal obligations be required to repay and be required to contribute? If this can be done in New Zealand, it can be done here. But the Minister says that there is no difference between a legally married but permanently separated person and a person who is not married. The legally married but permanently separated person still has the right to be supported by the other party to the marriage. The Minister has wiped off that recovery. He is not interested in that sort of recovery. It proves once again that he sees no difference whatsoever between a legally married couple, a non-legally married heterosexual couple and, dare I say, two person of the same sex living together in a `marriage' situation. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GEAR(Canning)(12.00) —It is entirely appropriate that the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) should talk about the assets test because nobody epitomised more than he the scandalous way in which the Liberal Party handled that issue during the last election campaign. He referred in his comments to gold teeth, a story that deserves to be told. If I have time, I will come back to it. The amendment to the motion for the second reading put forward by the Opposition spokesman, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), referred to the economic policies of this Government. Let us leave aside the sorts of economic policies or the state of the economy that we inherited from the previous Government. Let us not just talk about the 200,000 jobs lost, the negative growth, the lack of any sort of policy to overcome those problems. Let us not just talk about the 600,000 jobs that this Government has created or the way in which we have put the economy back on the rail. Let us look at some of the proposals from the Opposition-the mad hatter's auction, we could call it-and the difference between the Liberal Party and its National Party rump regarding the promises the Opposition makes to the people of Australia. We have to remember that those promises impinge on the social security area. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) yesterday detailed some of those promises. I would like to look at some of those figures that were cited by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh). He did some calculations as to what would be the financial cost to the Australian taxpayer. The idea of tertiary education for unemployment benefit recipients-that was a great idea by the Leader Opposition (Mr Howard)-would cost $600m. The income splitting would cost $1,900m. Moving further down the list, the reinstitution of negative gearing would cost $55m, which would go, of course, to the more affluent members of society. The abolition of the wine tax would cost $60m. Also, the abolition of tax on lump sum superannuation payments, which impinges directly on the matter before us today, would cost $100m. The abolition of the assets test, as proposed by the Opposition, would cost $140m. The abolition of the non-cash fringe benefits tax-the free lunch for all their mates-would cost $320m. The list goes on. If we add it up, as the Minister did yesterday, between $6,000m and $10,000m would have to be found. How can we take the Opposition seriously? We just cannot. It is absolute madness to listen to what those on the other side of the House are talking about. We must ask them: Where is the money coming from? The Leader of the Opposition was asked about the rebate on the oil levy. This question was asked: `Mr Howard, where would you get the money from'? He said: `That is not for me to say. You should ask the Government'. Mr Hodges —That is right, you are the Government. Mr GEAR —Why don't you tell us? The Opposition spokesman on social security is sitting at the table. I will ask him about the assets test. The Opposition undertook the most scandalous campaign which has ever been run, to scare pensioners. The once great Liberal Party travelled around this country during the last election campaign, scaring pensioners. Mr Hodges —Why do you hate pensioners? Mr GEAR —We do not hate pensioners. All we are trying to do is make sure that millionaires do not get the pension. As the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) has pointed out, the assets test stopped at least 12 millionaires from receiving the pension. The Opposition is willing to give it back to them; we are not. That is what the assets test is all about. If the Opposition intends to abolish the assets test, it should answer this question: Will it raise taxes in order to pay for it or will it lower pension benefits? It cannot have it both ways. It should let us know what it intends to do. While it is at it, maybe it can tell us where the rest of the money will come from to meet the $6,000m or $10,000m-worth of promises that have been made by both parties on the other side of the House. Let us look at the fiscal responsibility that this Government has shown towards pensioners. When we came to government there was a hole in the social security system through which a tractor could be driven. The first thing we did was stop the lump sum superannuation payments. In the past, a person could take a big lump sum, pay virtually no tax on it, put it into schemes which were being actively promoted through the Pension News, and pick up a pension. It was a case of the good old double dipping to which the Opposition is quite happy to return. During the second reading debate some speakers on the other side said that there was not a bottomless pit and that there must be some restraint on spending. Maybe the Opposition should tell us where it will get the money. Maybe it should be a little more honest about some of the proposals that it has put forward regarding promises to people, not only in the social security area but in other areas as well. Let us look at the present pension system. It is not one that this Government brought in; it is one that we inherited from the Liberal Party. If honourable members go back far enough they will find that this pension system came about in 1951 or 1952. Essentially, the present system provides that people have the freedom of choice to make provision for their own retirement; that is, people are expected to make provision for their own retirement under the Opposition's policy. The fact is that people do not do that. If people are not employed in a large company or by the Government which have superannuation schemes, they do not make any provision because they believe they are making some contribution towards the pension by paying tax. The fact is that, if one looks at the escalation in the number of people receiving pensions and the cost to revenue, one can see that that situation just cannot go on. This Government has been the first government since the last Labor Government to look at this situation and do something positive about it. The negotiations between the Australian Council of Trade Unions and this Government on the productivity claim and the paying of those benefits into a superannuation scheme is the first attempt since the Whitlam Government actually to look at the future and to look at the way in which we wish to receive our social security payments. But what do we get from honourable members opposite-more scaremongering. Honourable members opposite cannot put up a positive proposal themselves or, if they have, no one has heard of it. We are still waiting. Another thing that I would like to say about the payment of pensions in our history is that, if anyone came to this country and knew nothing about our political system and was just given a brief of the changes in the pension system in this country, he could soon work out the election dates because the conservative parties of this country have used the pension scheme as a massive pork-barrelling exercise. Whenever there were benefits to be given, they were given six to 12 months before an election-very close to the election. All the conservative government did was blow out the spending on social security, yet honourable members opposite talk about giving money to people in need. It finally got to the stage where in 1976 the conservative government abolished the assets test that had been in place since 1908. The Labor Government put it back in, and it took a lot of guts to put that assets test back in. We did it because it was necessary and we copped the political flak. Some of the people opposite can thank themselves for the scurrilous campaign they ran. The honourable member for Denison has just come back into the chamber. No one did more than he did to scare pensioners. I will tell honourable members a story about gold teeth. The honourable member for Denison ran around to the office of the then Minister for Social Security, Senator Don Grimes, and asked whether gold would be taken into account for the assets test. Of course, the answer was that it would. The honourable member for Denison raced back to his office and put out a Press release saying that the gold in pensioners' teeth would be taken into account for the assets test. How can anyone take the Opposition seriously with that sort of scaremongering? I will tell honourable members something about the assets test. It has been in existence for about a year and a half now and I have had only one inquiry about it-one. I was able to have that inquiry dealt with satisfactorily. So the number of people in my electorate affected is very minimal. There were at least 12 millionaires getting the pension, and honourable members opposite are quite happy to give it back to them. The people in need who are looking at getting their income from no other source than the pension-that is, the people in real need who will benefit from the assets test and not from the Opposition's proposals-should look at it in a little more detail than they were given at the last election. The people of Australia know what the Opposition is like. The people of Australia rejected the Opposition in 1983 and they made sure that it did not come back in 1984. The way that the Opposition is going, especially at Question Time with the personal attacks that we have seen in this chamber in the past couple of days, the people of Australia will reject the Opposition next time, the time after that and the time after that. I think this Government has done more in the time it has been here for the people in real need than honourable members opposite ever did. I commend the Minister for Social Security for his compassion and the legislation he brings before this chamber. We have a long way to go yet because of the neglect by the conservative governments. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(12.10) —I think this subject is a matter of bashing each other over the head. The honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) started a concerted effort of bashing the Opposition by saying that many of its members do not care about the poor and the needy and that sort of thing, but he seems to forget one important point, that is, that a number of taxpayers in Australia at the moment can afford to pay only a certain amount of money to the Government and many have reached the stage where they cannot afford to pay any more. On the other side we have the problem of having a growing number of people who require assistance. If honourable members opposite are going to talk about the assets test and tax ripoffs, what about looking at some of the things that have happened within the trade union movement and the erosion of the ability of people to be able to pay taxation because they cannot get jobs as some people have been so selfish about providing assistance for the needy in our community. Do not let us get into that argument. Somebody mentioned the compassion of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe). I will not disregard the fact that the Minister may be a very compassionate man, but he plays it pretty hard. When the Minister for Social Security went down to Hobart to open a social security office he made a few bad friends because he forgot that many members of parliament care for the needy and care for the poor, and there are many Liberal members who care for the needy and care for the poor. The honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) made a very valid point. He said: `Let us give it to the needy; let us make absolutely certain that we direct the money to the needy'. When the Minister for Social Security goes to Hobart again and at a mixed gathering he condemns the Fraser Government, he should remember that the Fraser Government introduced family allowances, half-yearly indexation of pensions and the supporting benefit for lone fathers. So, in fact, we have a pretty good record on these subjects. Honourable members opposite can say that we do not care, but we do care and we are worried. Let us face it, I very rarely agree with the honourable member for Melbourne, but he did make a point today that needs taking up, that is, the fact that we need to get together because we have a massive problem. Sometimes the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) agrees with me. We see all this waste of money on some of the arty, trendy groups-$127,000 for people to walk around holding hands and dancing. That money could be going to the needy of our community. We see peace groups getting little bits and pieces all the time to put up a tent for peace and run around. I am not attacking all these people, but sometimes I think-- Mr Hayden —Bruce, guess who one of the applicants for money was? Andrew Peacock. Mr GOODLUCK —All right, okay. Some of this money could be directed to the needy. We have a controversy in Hobart at the moment about the colour of bricks for a hotel. A lot of money will be wasted there. We have all the trendies saying: `Let us build this monument for the future; let us build an arts centre, let us build this and let us build that'. What about the real needy in our community? What about something for the elderly? Together we should be directing our attention to those people. Some of the very sophisticated lobby groups which seem to get the ear of the Ministers and of the Government-feminists and others-seem to be able to extract money but the poor people, those to whom we need to direct some of our attention, are not very sophisticated and are sometimes not in a position to talk to government. I think we could get together on this. The Government says that it has done a good job and the conservative government did a bad job. I could put the argument of pensioners in my electorate. I do listen to them and they say that they are worse off today than they were under our Government. The pensioners say: `All right, we may be getting a little bit more in our pensions but regrettably we are paying $3 a gallon for petrol, Bruce. It is costing us $3'. Food prices have gone up so we have to put this into correct perspective and we have to analyse it carefully together and then we might be able to come up with a few conclusions that are going to benefit people. After 11 years as a politician I am getting very agitated with some of the things occurring in my electorate, such as the discussion about building an arts centre there. We have many arts centres and recreational facilities in Hobart. We need some recreational facilities for the elderly and we need places they can go to. We talk about homeless youths; that seems to be very trendy at the moment. But we need to do more for them constructively. I read a very good report about Brother Alex McDonald, who visited Hobart yesterday. The report states: He said children were continually being put at risk and exploited by an adult society which was excessively delinquent and greedy. We need to do much more for them. Sometimes I disagree with my colleagues who talk about supporting parents. It is not the supporting parents whom we have to worry about; it is their children. Those children need to be brought up in an environment in which they can have a go in the future. The argument that we should stop the supporting parent benefit to certain mothers, et cetera, has a hollow ring if we are to support the children of Australia. If, regrettably, families break up, if, regrettably, husbands leave their wives in dire situations, if people die as a result of problems that they have, if young girls, regrettably, get into trouble, it is their children about whom we have to be concerned. Let us stop this hollow rhetoric about supporting mothers. Let us start considering the children and then we may get a better Australia. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(12.16) —I would like to address some remarks to the amendment that has just been introduced by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) to the Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill 1986 in light of his comments in his summing up speech. The Minister came into this place and, as is the wont of members of this Government, accused the Opposition of not having a policy. Immediately we had passed the second reading stage, he came in with a full amendment to a very significant part of this Bill, which obviously indicates that the Government did not quite know what its policy was to be. It had to withdraw an entire clause, redraft it and put it back in. The fact is that the Minister at the table is responsible for social security policy in Australia. This Government has now been in power for three years. No longer can it say that everything is our fault. It has had three years to develop and reform the social security system of this country. Any faults that exist in that system at present are the fault of the Government. Three years is ample time to develop policy, draft legislation and implement it. The Government has had heaps of time to come in with such piecemeal things as the assets test. But apparently it has not had time to develop a comprehensive and consistent social security policy. The only attempt that we have had from this Government to do anything about it was with the appointment of a consultant-or two, or three-but without terms of reference. Basically, the Government's plea was: `Go away and write us a policy because we do not have one'. What it has is a policy left over from the sixties and seventies that cannot quite cope with the right wing economic policies of the Australian Labor Party at present-policies that are causing more and more people to go into poverty in this country. I am extremely concerned at the terms that underlie this Bill. I am extremely concerned that the Minister, despite the fact that he will not address the problem, has asked the Parliament for a blank cheque to write off overpayments. He cannot estimate the degree of overpayment occurring in the Department of Social Security. Yet he has sought this Parliament's approval to write it off and not to seek any recovery from the people to whom those overpayments have been made. That is not a responsible approach to his job as the steward of the taxpayers' money on behalf of the Department of Social Security. The honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) made great play about the assets test. There are now more people in Australia on a full age pension than was the case before the assets test was introduced. The Government cannot have it both ways on this. It must have it one way or another. What it really means is that either the assets test has encouraged Australia's elderly people to put excessive amounts of capital into their homes because the homes have been exempted from the assets test or the economic policies of this Government have created economic need and suffering in this community to the extent that more and more people need the age pension. Whichever way it is, it is not much of a tribute to this Government's policy. Quite frankly, we have the most confused and inconsistent system of social security one could possibly imagine. We had the situation that this Minister recently changed the payment conditions for family allowance. The allowance stops for children once they reach the age of 18, whether the child is a student or not. At that stage the benefit available is either the tertiary education assistance scheme allowance or the secondary assistance scheme allowance, which are both strictly means tested. The family allowance is non-means tested but secondary assistance and tertiary assistance are strictly means tested. Of course, many families in the community today, because of the tax rates and because of the economic policies of this Government, are not in a position to afford to keep their children at school. Mr Howe —Are you advocating means testing family allowances? What is your policy? Why don't you tell us? Mr BLUNT —But, under this Government, there is the incentive that the unemployment benefit is available and is not means tested. The Minister is sitting here at the table, rabbiting on about what is our policy. He knows full well that he is the Minister and that he does not have answers to this question. In due course, the coalition will announce its policy. The Government will at the appropriate time discover that its outdated socialist ideas about social welfare, which simply perpetuate the cycle of dependency and do nothing to address the real human problems that exist in the community, will be found wanting. In fact only yesterday in this place we saw another example of the inconsistency in this Government's approach to social security. In the Sex Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill which was before the House yesterday, we saw amendments to the Delivered Meals Subsidy Act and the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act to reduce the eligibility age for males from 65 to 60. We were told that the measure will not increase expenditure. Quite frankly, I do not believe that. Where there is need, there is obviously an obligation to provide help and assistance. So either there will be more expenditure on that area of social welfare or, if this Government is to freeze the level of expenditure, we will have to provide less assistance to those people who need that help. But, by the same hand, this Government turns around and says to single supporting parents in this country: `I am sorry. We cannot provide any more help to you'. The reality is that welfare in this country is about priorities. It is not about chasing fashionable issues. It is about deciding where to spend the limited amount of money and which people to help. With this Bill the Minister is proposing to write off overpayments that have been made by the Department to people not entitled to benefits. He will then tell the supporting parents in this country that he cannot give them more money. Let us take a figure. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) has said that overpayments in this country could amount to $1 billion. That estimate is actually made by some officers in the Minister's Department who are charged with the responsibility of field work on the basis of the percentage of overpayments in total client recipients. The amount estimated is $1 billion. But let us assume that that figure is inaccurate and let us hypothetically say that the figure for overpayments is $500m. The Minister is proposing to write off that money. If that money were recovered from the people who have no intention of repaying it, he would have more funds to make available to the people in real need. The fact is that the Minister's administration of this Department has involved it in a situation in which it is not sure exactly to whom money is being paid and who is entitled to it. Talk is made of sophisticated computer analysis of payments. The fact is that computer analysis of records is only as good as the records themselves. If the accuracy of those records cannot be checked in the field, we can have no confidence in any analysis undertaken. The Minister talked about the percentage of people found to be in breach of the system as a result of the following up of public information. He selectively quoted statistics from 1 July. He made no reference to the fact that in the amnesty hot line a large percentage of the calls are actually from members of the public who think the hotline is provided for them to provide public information about people getting payments to which they are not entitled. The fact is that we still have a piecemeal approach to social security in this community. This Government has done nothing to reconcile the various benefit payments or the conditions applicable to obtaining those benefits. It has done nothing to address the problems identified by the Auditor-General. It has done nothing to improve the efficiency of the administration of the system. It is talking about piecemeal policies that really do not address a very serious community concern-a concern that is operating to the detriment of those members of the community who are in need of help. The Minister should recognise that it is his moral responsibility, as well as his responsibility as a Minister of the Crown, to ensure that the Department of Social Security effectively discharges its obligations, that there is community respect for the system of social security and that those people who are getting benefit under that system are not tarred with the wrong brush because some people are milking the system and taking the community for a ride. Until the Minister recognises his responsibilities in that area and addresses the problem as a whole instead of by piecemeal administration, piecemeal legislation and omnibus legislation which seek to change certain sections of the system without an overall game plan-a plan that will provide consistent and equitable benefits without traps for one class of beneficiary and not others-we will not have any significant improvement in social security in this community. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(12.25) —Mr Deputy Chairman, I will be brief. I re-enter the debate as the result of provocation by the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear). Let me just put the record straight on the question of the gold fillings to disclose the absolute incompetence of this Government and, in particular, this Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe). When the legislation for the vicious Hawke assets test came in it was very obvious that it would include all assets except those which were expressly excluded in the legislation. I made inquiries as a result of which I brought up in this House the fact that gold fillings, gold wedding rings and war decorations had not been excluded. The Government was so hasty to get its claws into the assets of the pensioners of Australia that it brought in legislation that was so badly drawn it had not excluded those things. The Government then amended it to exclude war decorations. It is still a matter of law. I challenge the Minister to deny it because his own Department has said: `Legally Hodgman is correct but ignore him'. Legally gold fillings and gold wedding rings are still not excluded from the Hawke-Howe assets test. As long as the Government leaves the statutes of this Parliament in that situation I shall continue to point out that its determination to claw and scratch even below the grave the assets of the pensioners of Australia is one of the most disgraceful things it has ever done. There are two other matters that I wish to mention. The Minister can glare if he wants to, but if he wants to have a bite from his side there will be a bite from this side. The point that he has still not responded to-the shadow Minister for Social Security, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), has again drawn this to his attention-is that he is schizophrenic on social security matters. He is attacking viciously the pensioners of Australia. Who in Australia today will forget the words of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in 1983 on the steps of the Sydney Opera House when he said: `We will not take any money out of the pensioners' cheques'? What a damnable untruth because this Government then moved to introduce an assets test, it has hounded the pensioners, it did not lift the ceiling on income tax and it is bringing in a capital gains tax. It is attacking, mutilating and mauling the old people, the grandparents of Australia. Mr Hodges —They can't be trusted. Mr HODGMAN —This Government cannot be trusted. But then on the other side of the coin it is prepared to let $1 billion float away. Honourable members opposite should not come into this chamber preaching about $3 billion of tax evasion, some of it very close to home in the Hawke socialist Government. Honourable members opposite should not come in here preaching about $3 billion of lost revenue. What about a bit of preaching about $1 billion of lost expenditure from a system which this Government has administered so abominably that it is being ripped off? I invite the Minister to talk to the Government of New Zealand. He will find there that, as a result of a scheme brought in by the Muldoon Government, 35 per cent of supporting mother's benefits are being recovered from the males who brought about the situation relating to the creation of those children. The honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) is quite right. I say bluntly that this debate is not about supporting mothers, it is about young Australians. I am concerned about young Australians. Whether they are born in wedlock or out of wedlock, they are still young Australians. The honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) has said on a previous occasion that the great riches and resources of this country are not the mining resources, not the minerals and not the oils. They are the young people of Australia. They are our richest resource. As far as helping them is concerned it does not matter to me, as a matter of law or a matter of principle, whether they are born in wedlock or out of wedlock. What I am complaining about is that this Government is doing nothing to bring to book those who should be footing the bill. Within the last 20 years men have been gaoled and properly gaoled for non-payment of maintenance. We will not get that in this laissez faire situation under this doctrinaire socialist Minister, urged on as he is repeatedly by feminist extremist groups to whom he kowtows so continuously that he is almost bent over. The plain fact of the matter is that this Government is not prepared to take the tough option. It is prepared to see the taxpayers of Australia ripped off over and again. The ordinary, hardworking taxpayers-married men and women with children who are normal, decent Australians-have had a gutful. This Minister is quite prepared to write off what he calls deficit fetishness. He does not care whether Australia runs itself into bankruptcy paying for these extravagant socialist policies. In fact, his strategy is to see the destruction of the private enterprise system, by destroying the Australian economy. This Minister, with the possible exception of Dr Death, the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), is the most doctrinaire socialist that this country has ever seen in office. He makes Dr Jim Cairns look like a choir boy. He is one of the most extreme and one of the most dangerous political monsters ever to be set loose on the people of Australia. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(12.30) —We have just had a somewhat typical performance from the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) whose hold on reality seems to be getting increasingly dim. Two or three issues were raised in the Committee stage that I think are worth referring to. I was rather surprised that the honourable member for Denison seemed to think there was something wrong with an amnesty that did not extend to cheats. The Government makes no apology for the fact that the amnesty is limited. It is restricted in a real sense to people whose sins are sins of omission rather than commission, that is, those people whose circumstances have changed and they have failed to report that change of circumstance to the Department of Social Security. We believe that, in those circumstances, an approach which is more sensitive, which encourages people to come forward, is likely to give us a much better understanding of the reasons for those overpayments occurring and for people getting themselves into that situation. We suspect that one of the problems is in the area of information; the way in which information is transmitted to people. We are seeking to tackle that but we will learn more as a result of the amnesty. The honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) gave us another lecture which seemed to me to take us back again to one of the fundamental themes of conservative philosophy, which is really a very historic theme, concerning a distinction between the so-called deserving and undeserving poor. I think we see in speeches by various Opposition members, including the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) recently in north Queensland, a tendency to return to the notion that social security ought not to be paid to people in general but ought to be paid specifically to people who are not only needy but also deserving. In the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition which he made in north Queensland we have arising a concept about introducing conscription in relation to the payment of the unemployment benefits; that people who receive the unemployment benefit ought to be conscripted, if not into the work force into training programs. I think that repressiveness is becoming more and more apparent in the remarks of Opposition spokesmen and people on the back bench. There is an attitude that somehow there are these people who may have very little income or virtually no income at all apart from what they receive by way of social security and that those people who are near to being destitute somehow have to be classified in some way as deserving. They have to earn their benefit. They do not get a benefit simply because they are in need, as a matter of right, but they have to earn that benefit. If we go down that track in terms of social security policy in this country we will be going down a track which I believe will lead to a great deal of stigmatising and stereotyping of the poor. One of the things that strike us particularly about members of the National Party of Australia is that they are into stereotypes. They are into saying that, because they can think of one example of someone who may be ripping off the system or one example of people who are receiving payments which honourable members opposite think they are not entitled to, they can stereotype the whole population. It was interesting to note in the earlier debate on the Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill that the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) cited three or four newspaper headlines. The Opposition is into headlines. Every Question Time we feed off the headlines. If there are no headlines there are no questions. So we get a few headlines. But it is interesting that most of the headlines referred to were to do with the prosecution of social security fraud. That was the major theme. Honourable members opposite stigmatise a whole class of people because a few people are into ripping off the system. This Bill is not about protecting people who are into fraud or who are cheats. The Government is taking, and will take, a very firm position. However, one has to make a distinction between administering the social security system in a firm way and stereotyping and stigmatising people who happen to be on pensions or benefits. The social security system is this country has a tradition which goes back to around Federation; from the very earliest years of this country we have paid pensions and benefits on a basis of right. We have achieved a situation in which there is not a great deal of stigma associated with the social security system in this country. To receive a pension or even a benefit in Australia from the Department of Social Security has not been something which stigmatises a person; it has not been something which reduces the recipients, standing in any way. However, it would be quite regrettable if we went down the track-which is devoid of policy-which the Opposition is going down. Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report-by leave-adopted. Motion (by Mr Howe)-by leave-proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(12.37) —In the final seconds of debate on the Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill I ask: Will the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) now indicate what the Government expects to recover to revenue through this fraudulent amnesty about which he has spoken in such glowing terms? Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Consideration resumed from 30 April. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 7, paragraph 17 (b), proposed sub-section 46 (7), line 21, after ``notwithstanding that'', insert ``, after all the evidence has been considered,''. No. 2-Page 10, clause 21, proposed sub-section 51A (2), lines 30 to 32, leave out the sub-section, insert the following sub-section: ``(2) for the purposes of the application of sub-section (1) in relation to a proceeding concerning a representation made by a corporation with respect to any future matter, the corporation shall, unless it adduces evidence to the contrary, be deemed not to have had reasonable grounds for making the representation.''. No. 3-Page 10, clause 21, proposed new sub-section 51A (3), line 33, leave out, ``shall not be taken'', insert ``shall be deemed not''. No. 4-Page 28, clause 35, at the end of clause, add the following new section: Cessation of Division in respect of foods and drinks ``65U. At the expiration of 2 years after the day on which this Division comes into operation, this Division shall cease to have effect in respect of goods which are foods and drinks intended for human consumption.''. No. 5-Page 35, clause 38, lines 1 to 10, leave out the clause, insert the following clause: Warranties in relation to the supply of services ``38. Section 74 of the Principal Act is amended- (a) by inserting in sub-section (2) `(other than services of a professional nature provided by a qualified architect or engineer)' after `services' (first occurring); and (b) by omitting sub-section (3) and substituting the following sub-section: `(3) A reference in this section to services does not include a reference to services that are, or are to be, provided, granted or conferred under- (a) a contract for or in relation to the transportation or storage of goods for the purposes of a business, trade, profession or occupation carried on or engaged in by the person for whom the goods are transported or stored; or (b) a contract of insurance.'.''. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(12.39) —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. There are five Senate amendments. I appreciate that my colleague opposite, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), may not have much knowledge of this matter. Regarding amendment No. 1, we did not see any problems with the terms of proposed sub-section 46 (7). That provision was intended to enable the court to balance all of the evidence including evidence of conduct and any explanation of it. However, the Government is prepared to add the amending words to satisfy the concerns of the Senate. The Government stresses that this is a clarification amendment and that the existing paragraphs of the explanatory memorandum relating to proposed new section 46 (7), paragraphs 51 to 55, are equally applicable to the amending clause. Amendment No. 2 places an evidential burden on the defendant to adduce that it had reasonable grounds for making its prediction. This amendment arose as a result of the concern of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. Whilst the Government would prefer that the proposed section be not altered, it considers that this amendment does not derogate significantly from the protection sought. Amendment No. 3 seeks to make it perfectly clear that proposed new sub-section 51A does not, by implication, limit the meaning of the words `misleading representation' elsewhere in Part V of the Act. On the basis that the amendment does not change the meaning of sub-section 3, the Government accepts it. In the Senate the Australian Democrats inserted a sunset clause which would exempt food and drink supplies from the ambit of new Division 1A-product safety and product information-of Part V after two years of its operation. On the basis that the Democrats have indicated that they will support an extension of the sunset period if recall provisions mirroring those in Division 1A are not included in State and Territory model food legislation, the Government accedes to amendment No. 4. It is understood that model legislation might be introduced within that period and, accordingly, the Government is prepared to see what develops in the two-year period. Amendment No. 5 is also a Democrat amendment which will exclude professional services from this provision provided that those services are provided by a qualified architect or engineer where there is a warranty of fitness for purpose in relation to services. We do not see the logical explanation of just picking out those two professions, but it was made very clear to us that the trade practices legislation would not be passed at all unless this amendment was agreed to. Whilst the Government can see very little logic in what is happening, the amendment still allows a significant expansion of the coverage of section 74 (2). In the circumstances, the Government will not reject the amendment. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(12.42) —Naturally the Opposition is disappointed that more drastic action was not taken with the Trade Practices Revision Bill in the Senate but it is mindful of the situation there. We are grateful for the small crumbs that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has thrown in our direction and in the direction of the Australian Democrats who combined with the Opposition when a vote was taken. Therefore, the Opposition will not oppose these changes in the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I ask the Treasurer to give an unequivocal assurance to the House that all the personal tax cuts promised in his statement of 19 September 1985 will in fact be given. Mr KEATING —This question from the Leader of the Opposition is obviously encouraged by an article in today's National Times which has no foundation to it at all. I am quite happy and pleased to reaffirm what both the Prime Minister and I have said on a number of occasions, namely, that the tax cuts announced previously will stand, of course. Mr BLANCHARD —My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation. What progress has been made in the reappraisal of the Darwin Airport terminal project? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for his question. This project was estimated to cost $100m to $108m. It was deferred for reappraisal in the run up to the Budget considerations last year. The matter is still under consideration and a number of factors are yet to be considered and resolved. I will be in Darwin next week in fulfilment of a long-standing commitment to the Royal Federation of Aero Clubs to open its annual conference, but I do not expect to be in a position to make any announcement in respect of what will happen to Darwin Airport terminal at that time. Mr SPENDER —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Does the Attorney- General agree that one of the most serious forms of contempt of court is to threaten, intimidate or victimise a witness as a consequence of his having given evidence in a trial, and that this is all the more serious when done publicly and by a person in a high and powerful public position? Are the statements made by the Premier of New South Wales following the trial of Mr Justice Murphy concerning Mr Briese, the New South Wales Chief Magistrate, and concerning Mr Briese's future, being examined to determine whether or not a prima facie case of contempt exists against the Premier? If not, will the Attorney-General direct the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider whether a case of prima facie criminal contempt exists? If the Director of Public Prosecutions considers it does exist, will the honourable gentleman give full support to the Director taking such proceedings against the Premier as he may consider appropriate? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —As the honourable member for North Sydney would know, the question of contempt is an inherent jurisdiction in every court and, therefore, it is not just a matter of my taking an interest in the matter. The court itself can take action. Mr Spender —You are the Attorney-General. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, I am the Attorney-General federally. Mr Howard —Briese exercised his Federal jurisdiction. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —He does, too. At this stage, though, the law of contempt also relates to proceedings that are current. That is another action of law that the honourable member seems to have overlooked. The question is whether proceedings are current. I need not elaborate any further, but action has been taken in this respect at a Federal level on the question of contempt and that matter will be the subject, I think, of trial next month in New South Wales. Mr Howard —No, it is a different offence. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will not start again today interjecting across the table. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is about time the Leader of the Opposition was given the opportunity to stand up and ask questions, but once one starts to answer them, he keeps asking more questions. Mr Howard —Oh! Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The Leader of the Opposition just finds it impossible to shut up. Honourable members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! This is just not good enough. The House has Standing Orders and the Chair gives a lot of indulgence to the leaders of each of the parties. The Chair will not continue to give that same indulgence. I expect both members seated at the table to cease talking across the table. Mr Carlton —He should-- Madam SPEAKER —I expect all members, including the honourable member for Mackellar, to observe the Chair. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am addressing my remarks to you, Madam Speaker, in answer to the question. The question of contempt is a matter for the inherent jurisdiction of the court itself, if need be, and it can take action. The other axiom of contempt is that there must be proceedings current, and that has not got through the thick skull of the Leader of the Opposition. That is the position and that really is the issue of contempt. If honourable members want to debate that issue, they will find that it is the subject of litigation in the Supreme Court of New South Wales within the next month. The very issue relates to what is contempt. The issue is whether there are current proceedings that could be influenced by the expressions that are made. That is the issue of contempt. Mr SAUNDERSON —My question is addressed to the Minister for Housing and Construction. Has he any early results from the 2 April housing package? Mr WEST —Although it is only one month after the announcement of the 2 April package, I am happy to report to the House that the early results are, to say the least, fairly pleasing. Only today Westpac Savings Bank announced that it is now lending for housing at the rate of $20m per week which is commensurate with its share of the total lending effort by savings banks of $6,000m per year. I also understand that the total of lending for housing from savings banks is now at a rate of $550m per month which in total means that current lending is on line to produce $6,000m per year. The Government expects in the near future to finalise written commitments from the banks before the payment of the first round of subsidies. Those commitments, of course, would include commitments about lending performance, the need to increase the overall effort in the provision of low start loans and the provision of information and forward estimates of future lending. Mr Beale —Will that be the subject of legislation? Mr WEST —It will be the subject of legislation. The issue of low start loans is very important to the Government and the community and I do want to say to the banks that we expect all the savings banks to be involved in the provision of low start loans. I would like to see banks adopt procedures similar to that implemented by the Commonwealth Bank, for instance, whereby I understand lending to low income earners is 25 per cent of total lending performance. A low start loan is offered if requested. This is very important on two counts, first, to fulfil social need and, secondly, because it has a tendency to increase the actual number of loans involved which will emanate from the total expected bank lending of $6,000m over 1986-87. That is very important in the achievement of the expected 135,000 starts in 1986-87. I am happy to report that all the savings banks are, to varying degrees, implementing low start loans. I particularly want to compliment the Savings Bank of Victoria which has instigated a system of low start loans with an initial repayment based on an interest rate of only 12.5 per cent. That is a very good effort and I know that other banks are moving in these directions also. I stress that all the savings banks should significantly expand their low start lending activities. Madam Speaker, our policy package is working and it should continue to work. The housing package of 2 April is in itself only one component of an extraordinarily successful range of housing policies implemented by this Labor Government. Mr HICKS —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Since the Prime Minister's visit to the United States, the United States has subsidised wheat sales to the Yemen Arab Republic and is about to place 5,000 tonnes of subsidised rice into Papua New Guinea-both sales affecting traditional Australian markets-and it also threatens the Australian cotton industry. Each of these actions will damage primary producers and rural communities in the Riverina, north-western New South Wales and other areas of Australia. Given the Prime Minister's recent statement that he has received commitments from the United States that it will direct subsidised products away from Australia's traditional export markets, what has the Prime Minister done and what will he do to offset these United States actions, which are contrary to his assurances given to the House this week? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for his question. He will recall that my colleague the Minister for Primary Industry has responded to the question of United States wheat sales to the Yemen and I think nothing is usefully added to that answer. It was comprehensively dealt with by the Minister. But I did note that part of the honourable member's question dealing with alleged United States rice sales to Papua New Guinea, and I will address myself to that part of his question. Australia is currently the sole supplier of rice to Papua New Guinea. In 1984-85 Australian exports to Papua New Guinea totalled 111,000 tonnes, valued at over $50m. That represented, as I think the honourable member will know, about one-third of the total of Australia's rice exports. The market clearly is therefore of paramount importance to the Australian rice industry and exports of possible subsidised United States sales are of extreme concern to this Government. Our Embassy in Washington was assured by United States officials on Wednesday that no subsidies for rice sales to Papua New Guinea have been requested under the export enhancement program or any other United States Government guaranteed credit program. My understanding is that Australian rice industry representatives also do not expect any sale to Papua New Guinea to involve an EEP subsidy. I acknowledge that the local industry believes that it has reliable information indicating that negotiations for United States rice sales to Papua New Guinea are well advanced, but our officials have checked with the United States Agriculture Service, the Commodity Credit Corporation and the United States Rice Council, which all claimed to be unaware of any United States sale of rice to Papua New Guinea. United States rice prices have declined significantly in recent weeks as a result of other provisions of the 1985 Farm Act. Those provisions-particularly, as the honourable member might be aware, the marketing loan provisions-were firmly in place prior to my visit to Washington. The Administration said that, while it noted our concern for these provisions, a concern I can assure the honourable member I put most vigorously to the Administration, and the potential impact they might have on world rice prices, it was not in a position to change the provisions at this point of time. Low priced sales of United States rice on world markets cannot be ruled out. However, our officials in Washington will remain in close contact with United States officials on this matter to ensure that our concerns are kept before the United States Administration. Given what I know to be the legitimate interests and concerns of the honourable member, if I ascertain any further information which needs to be given to add to or qualify that answer in any way, I assure him that he will receive that information at the earliest possible opportunity. Mr O'NEIL —Is the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware of claims that small business has been disadvantaged by Government economic and industrial policies, particularly in relation to its capacity to increase employment? Can the Minister advise the House whether there is any evidence to support these allegations? Mr WILLIS —I am aware of these claims but, of course, they are totally lacking in evidence to support them. Such claims have been made especially by our supposed Opposition. The fact is that evidence is available from a survey of employment and earnings, conducted quarterly by the Australian Statistician, which shows that there has been very strong employment growth by small business while this Government has been in office. The latest survey was carried out for the December quarter and it shows a growth in the employment of wage and salary earners for the year to December 1985 of 4.8 per cent, which is obviously a very high rate of growth. Of that 4.8 per cent, the public sector accounted for a relatively small proportion-only about 14 per cent. The private sector accounted for 86 per cent of the growth, it having had a growth in the employment of wage and salary earners in 1985 of 6 per cent, which was a tremendously high rate of growth. Not only was there strong growth in the private sector as a whole but also there was very strong growth amongst small business. One can get from the Statistician some unpublished data to complement what is in the published data. Taking the smallest of the three categories of private sector firms, which is firms with less than 20 employees, if one looks at the rate of growth of employment in that sector one finds that in the year to November 1985, the latest figures available, there was a growth in employment of 5.8 per cent, compared with growth for the private sector as a whole of 5.8 per cent. That is obviously a very high rate of growth for that small business sector. If one goes back two years, to November 1984, one finds growth for this small business sector over the period of 9.6 per cent, slightly higher than the whole private sector rate of 9.5 per cent. Finally, one can also get other figures which relate to another definition of small business. The Bureau of Industry Economics defines small business as firms in the non-manufacturing sector with less than 20 employees and firms in the manufacturing sector with less than 100 employees. Using that definition we can see that growth in small business in the year to November 1985 was 6.3 per cent and in the two years to November 1985 it was 9.8 per cent. Clearly small business has experienced very high rates of growth, higher than for the private sector as a whole. It follows from that that allegations that this Government has in some way instituted economic policies, taxation policies and wages policies which have inhibited the growth in employment in small business are arrant nonsense. There is no evidence whatsoever to support that. The evidence shows clearly that with the centralised wages system in operation there has been an explosion of employment in small business in this country, and obviously this Government deserves credit for that. Mr Shipton —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I ask, through you, for the Minister to table the unpublished Australian Bureau of Statistics information from which he quoted, the Bureau of Industry Economics material from which he quoted and any other unpublished material. Mr WILLIS —I am quite happy to table the table I read from, Madam Speaker, but he can contact the Statistician himself to verify it. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I ask: When will this Government of wankers living on tick-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will substitute another word. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Madam Speaker, one of my colleagues asks: `What is a wanker?'. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will substitute another word. I ask the honourable member to use parliamentary language. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —`Wanker' means a person who maintains an illusion or deceives himself. It does not have a nasty connotation, just a relevant connotation. Madam SPEAKER —I am sure that with the honourable member's background he will find a suitable word. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —When will this deluded Government living on tick face up squarely-- Mr Willis —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. Would you ask the honourable member to take his hand out of his pocket? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. I am pleased to see the House in such good humour, but we are wasting Question Time. I suggest that the honourable member for Berowra start his question again. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Perhaps, Madam Speaker, after the Minister takes his thumb out of his mouth I will start. Madam SPEAKER —Let us have the question. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —When will this Government living on tick face up squarely to the reality of Australia's yawning balance of payments deficit amid rising inflation, a deficit of $1,000m a month or $30m on tick every day, and largely blown on consumption purposes rather than investment to contribute to the growth of productive capacity? Does the Treasurer not recognise that if the option of sustained high interest rates, discouraging investment and leading to recession, is to be avoided, he has to do something radical in the wages area, ideally a freeze-- Mr Cohen —I would go back to wanking if I were you. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Does the honourable member want me to start again? Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will get to the point. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —If the Treasurer is going to avoid that option, does he recognise that he has to do something substantial in the wages area or substantially cut the `social wage' such as via the leaked proposal for a $1.4 billion cut in Budget spending which would not be a sufficient cut? Mr KEATING —Madam Speaker-- Dr Harry Edwards —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. The Treasurer is addressing us with his hand in his pocket in an unparliamentary way. Madam SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr KEATING —I do not suffer from his complaint, Madam Speaker. The history of Australia's lack of competitiveness is a sad and sorry history. It goes back some years now to when the last Government was running a current account deficit of 6 per cent of gross domestic product in 1981. That current account deficit subsided temporarily in 1982-83 only because of the massive recession which cut imports. What may have seemed to be a temporary improvement in the current account deficit in 1982-83 was only a response to the grave recession Australia was in. The fact is that the Australian economy has been uncompetitive for a long time. The massive overvaluation of the exchange rate allowed by the former Government, which I can never understand in terms of the National Party's supposed interest in rural producers, rendered Australia's exporters uncompetitive in world markets and smashed our import competing industries. That, coupled with a wages explosion in 1981 when we saw the metal union secure $39 a week-- Mr Tuckey —Bill Kelty fixed that. Mr KEATING —No, Malcolm Fraser fixed it by flying off to St Paul's for the royal wedding instead of stamping it out, if the honourable member recalls. Then there was the incompetence of the former Treasurer who had no control over wages policy. They are the causes of Australia's current account problem-a massive explosion in wages, a massive increase in inflation and a recession. Mr Cadman —You have been in government for three years. What have you done? Mr KEATING —That is coupled with the fact that the import competing sectors of the Australian economy have been cut to pieces by imports and we were being squeezed out of world markets by an uncompetitive exchange rate. That is the background. That is what this Government inherited. This Government inherited two great fundamental imbalances. The first was the Commonwealth Budget deficit and the second was the current account deficit. As the Government placed demand back in the Australian economy it started to stress the current account and suck in imports and hence exacerbated the current account. The fundamental changes the Government has put into place to deal with the problem are first, the float of the dollar, which has allowed a 30 per cent-plus depreciation of the exchange rate to restore our competitiveness and secondly, a dramatic change in the performance of wage outcomes in this country which are now akin to and as good as some of the most flexible labour markets in the world. Those two factors in time will correct the fundamental imbalance we face. I would have thought that Dr Edwards, with his background in economics-- Mr Tuckey —He knows the reality of it. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr KEATING —I would have thought that he would have been more vocal in the last Government in recognising the fact that in not being prepared to face up to the exchange rate and trying to use it as an anti-inflation weapon, when it had no wages policy and an erratic monetary policy, its behaviour and its total gutlessness in dealing with these fundamental imbalances was the singular cause for the unbalancing of the Australian economy back towards an agrarian economy producing grains, wheat, wool, meat, minerals and not another thing. The fact is that this Government has done the right thing in every respect in trying to correct this fundamental imbalance and in trying to shave domestic demand in the economy towards the end of last year, which the national account showed was growing at the rate of 6.7 per cent-twice the Budget forecast of 3 per cent. The Government did the right thing in tightening monetary policy to slow down that demand so as not to exacerbate the import growth problem and hence the current account. That policy has been relaxed since. Interest rates have fallen by about 4 to 5 per cent. But the fact is that it will have induced a slowing of the economy which will make it more domestically compatible with our external conditions. In the opportunities I had at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and International Monetary Fund meetings I urged upon member states, particularly Japan and Germany, that, in the face of zero inflation, they should try to lift their growth performance, if not by fiscal policy, by going on the relaxed side of monetary policy because it is only by a lift in international growth that eventually commodity prices will rise for both developed and developing countries and, given the massive increase in export volumes- Mr Ian Cameron —What have you done with oil? Mr KEATING —If the dummies opposite would listen for a second they might learn something. It is only by the lift in commodity prices coming off this massive growth in export volumes, which the Government's policies have induced through the exchange rate, that our current account will be easily corrected other than by requiring a different stance of policy internally. The fact is that whatever the world provides us we have to deal with. The fact is that we must deal with it as it is. That is why the Government has said consistently that as the weight of policy shifts off monetary policy the burden will shift on to fiscal policy. The honourable member for Berowra inquires of me whether we should reduce the social wage. The fact is that the social wage in that sense has been cut by the discount coming off the April case, when it is heard, of 2 per cent in the face of the 30 per cent price change on the exchange rate. In other words, we have been able to induce a cut in wages in recognition of the fact that there will be a surge of imported prices coming off the depreciation. That is why the inflationary surge is temporary, and that is why we have secured the appropriate wage adjustment in the face of the changed conditions. As this is the first serious question directed to me in months about the domestic economy and about the general cast of economic policy, I provided the honourable member with a serious reply to the fundamental problems but reminded him and the cowboys on his front bench that it was their behaviour in 1982- Mr Tuckey —Come on! If you are starting that again- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for O'Connor. If he continues to disregard the Chair I will name him. Mr Tuckey —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I responded to the Treasurer who was getting back to his old tricks of insult. He should cut out the bit about cowboys. Madam SPEAKER —There is no point of order. The honourable member for O'Connor will remember that I have warned him. Mr KEATING —The fact of the matter is-and this needs to be driven home and driven into the mind of every domestic manufacturer, every farmer, every miner-that the cause of their distress through 1982 and 1983 was the over-valuation of the exchange rate by the coalition and the destruction wrought by the metal trades round in the absence of a wages policy of the kind Opposition members now espouse again; they are not learning any lessons from their past mistakes. I warn those people and industries that they will be in for it all over again if they ever have the coalition back. Mr WRIGHT —I direct my question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I refer to the four enterprise development projects-Alcorn College in Brisbane, Almavale Stud in Toowoomba, the Mitchell Picture Theatre and the Southport Cultural Centre. Is the Minister aware of claims that unless urgent action is taken by the Aboriginal Development Commission these important projects will be lost to the Aboriginal people in the southern parts of Queensland? What action can the Minister take or has he taken to overcome the alleged problems associated with these projects? Mr HOLDING —I am aware of the allegations that have been made and of the fact that the offices of the Aboriginal Development Commission have been occupied by some Aboriginal groups from the south of Brisbane as have the offices of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. The Aboriginal Development Commission is a statutory corporation established by a previous government and supported by this Government, and it has the responsibility and awesome duty of allocating funds to Aboriginal people around Australia on the basis of the submissions put to it and of the needs of those communities. I make it clear that so long as I am Minister I will not support any interference with the rights and the duties of commissioners to make those decisions, free from the kind of pressure that comes from sitting in in offices. We will not allow a situation to be determined in the allocation of public money where a group, simply by sitting in an office and asking that demands be met, jumps to the top of the queue. I have pointed out to those Aboriginal leaders who have been involved in this that both the Chairman and the Secretary of the Commission, and the Secretary to the Department, are able and ready to discuss with them any of their problems. Basically the actions that are being taken by some Aboriginal groups are irresponsibly undermining the whole principle of self-determination. So far as I am concerned, the Commission will not yield to that kind of rent-a-mob pressure. Mr DONALD CAMERON —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs aware that since World War II successive Australian governments have accepted the responsibility for burial or cremation of at least 130,000 returned servicemen and women whose lives were shortened, and that was accepted as such, as the result of the service they gave to this nation? Is the Minister aware that the new seemingly money-hungry management board of Brisbane Crematorium Ltd has now made public statements advising that at Mount Thompson Crematorium they really do intend, in the year 2007, unless a niche fee is again paid, to evict older urns, dump the ashes and re-sell the niches? In view of the fact that hundreds of former servicemen and women are at rest at Mount Thompson and the other crematorium at Albany Creek in Brisbane, and in view of the assurance of the Commonwealth Government that the remains of our war dead were laid to sacred rest in perpetuity, will the Minister act to call a gathering of the responsible State Ministers to ensure that this cold, callous, commercial approach is itself buried forever from the Australian scene? Mr HOLDING —Yes, the Minister and the Commonwealth War Graves Commission are aware of the situation-largely as a result of the publicity given to the matter by the honourable member for Moreton. The matter is not merely of concern to the War Graves Commission; the Minister for Veterans' Affairs assures me that his Department is moving on the matter. He has indicated that it is a matter of the deepest concern, and he has been very carefully monitoring the situation overseas. We have had to make it clear that we regard the war graves of Australian dead in some parts of the Middle East as sacrosanct. The Minister's view is that the Government will not take one position in respect of war graves overseas and stand by and let a set of commercial interests closely related to the National Party in Queensland put war graves in jeopardy. Mr GAYLER —Will the Minister for the Arts, Heritage and Environment outline to the House and the Australian people what action has been taken by the Federal Government relating to the grounding of the Jhansi Ki Rani on the Frederick Reef 300 kilometres east of Mackay? Can he assure the people of Australia that there will be no damage flowing from the grounding of that vessel? Mr COHEN —The honourable member is correct in saying that the ship did strike Frederick Reef about 300 nautical miles off Mackay, at about 6 o'clock on Thursday, 24 April. The ship was carrying some 74,000 tonnes of coal and approximately 870 tonnes of oil. It is grounded and it is taking water. Salvage is being assessed, but the risk of either a cargo or fuel spill appears now to be very low. If a spill occurs the threat to the Great Barrier Reef is still considered to be low. It is of course outside the area of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park by some miles. It is unlikely that there would be any significant environmental damage if some of the cargo of coal were jettisoned in order to refloat the ship. Rescue and recovery operations are being co-ordinated by the Federal Sea Safety and Surveillance Centre in Canberra and the Department of Transport. The light station ship Cape Moreton is standing by at Frederick Reef. The Cape Moreton has oil spill emergency response gear on board. Mr SHARP —Is the Attorney-General aware that Argentine ant inspectors have greater investigative powers than do officers of the National Crime Authority because they can carry out a thorough search of premises without a warrant? Is the Attorney-General prepared to lend his support to giving increased powers to the Authority so that it can carry out its role properly by allowing certain authorised officers of the Authority to direct such searches? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am not responsible for the National Crime Authority, but I am prepared to do anything it might want by way of assistance. I understand that it has not asked for any. Mr BURR —My question is directed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. In light of Australia's worsening balance of payments position, has the Government changed its mind on the case it is presenting to the productivity hearing now before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission? Does the Government still believe that a 3 per cent payment in the form of superannuation is appropriate and responsible? If the Commission grants a 3 per cent increase, what will be the effect on unemployment and what will be the effect on Australia's international competitiveness? As an act of responsibility to all Australians, and in particular to the unemployed, will the Government now argue before the Commission that Australian employers simply cannot afford an increase in wage costs at this time? Mr WILLIS —Of course, it is a matter of historical record that the policies pursued by this Government have been very conducive to employment growth. The question that I answered previously today demonstrated that. We intend to do nothing which will in any way reduce that performance in terms of continuing to create jobs at as rapid a rate as economic conditions will allow, and to continue to reduce unemployment. In respect of the national wage case which is currently before the Commission, and which has been before it since 11 February and looks like being before it for about another month, the Commonwealth put its submission to that case some time ago. That submission supported the continuance of an indexation system and also, in line with the prices and incomes accord mark 2, the establishment of a superannuation outcome from the productivity claim. Of course, it was put in the context of the Government's strong belief that an outcome of that kind would be conducive to continued strong growth of the Australian economy and that it would not impair our competitiveness Let me make it quite clear that in terms of the productivity case we are talking about an outcome over the course of a two-year period. Never before in the history of the Commission has a claim been put to it on the basis that the outcome should be spread over two years. But that is what is being put in this case. It is quite false, for instance, for the Leader of the Opposition, when talking recently about a 13 per cent increase in labour costs, to lump in the 3 per cent as though it will apply to everyone from 1 July. That simply is not true. The rest of the 13 per cent is also fairly apocryphal. The 3 per cent figure will be implemented over the course of a two-year period. That clearly takes considerable account of the cost impact. It is our calculation that the increases, which are on track with the 2.3 per cent which we say should come out of the indexation part of this claim, and the two year feed-in of the superannuation aspect of this claim, will not impair our international competitiveness and will allow us to continue to bring down inflation, it having peaked at around the present level. We expect that future figures will show a downward trend and that an outcome of the kind which we have sought in that case will be compatible with that trend. We see no reason at this stage to change that submission. Mr MAHER —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. What progress has been made towards the establishment of an integrated Commonwealth and State legal aid service in New South Wales? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The question of an integrated service in New South Wales has been the subject of negotiation, particularly on the question of who would bear what proportion of the total cost. There has been some uncertainty as to what would be the overall budget. In fairness to New South Wales, it makes a substantial contribution to legal aid. In fact, I think its budget is in the vicinity of $20m to $24m. From the point of view of contributions made by the States, New South Wales makes by far the greatest contribution. That is understandable, of course, because of the amount of money that is obtained from income from the fidelity fund and matters of that nature. Other States, of course, perhaps do not have the same resources to make such a contribution. So there have been discussions for some time as to what might be deemed to be a suitable criterion that would apply not only in New South Wales, but right across the nation. I am happy to advise the honourable gentleman that in recent days there have been discussions which I think will bring the matter to finality on the basis that the Commonwealth will make a contribution of, say, 55 per cent of the cost and the New South Wales Government will make a contribution of 45 per cent of the cost. It would be hoped that the new scheme would come into operation with an integrated service as from 1 July next. Mr HUNT —My question, which is directed to the Prime Minister, follows on from the question asked by the honourable member for Riverina-Darling. It relates to his recent visit to the United States of America and discussions with President Reagan and others about the US Farm Bill. In view of the excessive subsidy and predatory trading practices by the United States in respect of its cotton exports and the consequent collapse of cotton prices, what action is the Government taking with the United States to encourage that country to desist from sabotaging our cotton industry, which is the most efficient and unsubsidised in the world? Mr HAWKE —I thank the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia for his question and acknowledge the very real interest he has in this area. I can only say what I have already said to the House; that is, in the area of cotton and rice the action of the United States comes under what it calls its payment in kind program. I had to acknowledge quite frankly that in that area we were not able to receive reassurances that were able to give us any great degree of comfort. I have said that previously. As the honourable gentleman knows, we have received assurances from the United States-they started with the visit of my colleague the Minister for Trade, and were added to by my visit-so that we can consistently, both at the ministerial and official level, put the details of our concern about these programs. Our exports of cotton and rice crops are worth respectively about $250m and $120m. Maybe that is not large in comparison with some of our major crops. Nevertheless, as the honourable member realises, it is of particular significance to some of our regions. I can assure the honourable gentleman that we will continue to put our concerns. I hope that, in regard to the two areas of cotton and rice, within a period of 12 to 18 months the operation of that program may be seen, if not to end, to be scaled down. I do not say that I can assure the honourable member that that will be the case, but from the discussions we had it was indicated that there was some hope on the part of the Administration that that may be so. I think that the honourable member knows from his own visits that there is a distinction in this matter between the Administration and the Congress. We must in all fairness say that the Administration recognises the corruptive impact of these various elements of the legislative program. I cannot usefully add to that, except to say that I want to acknowledge the very constructive approach of the Deputy Leader of the National Party. I will certainly continue to keep him informed of any further pieces of infor- mation concerning the question on our cotton industry that he has directed to me. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) — Pursuant to section 30 of the Human Rights Commission Act 1981, I present the Human Rights Commission annual report for 1984-85. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Terri- tories) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Milk Authority for 1984-85. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the Attorney- General claim to have been misrepresented? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I do, Madam Speaker. This morning's Age has an article entitled `Comment' by Mr Terry McCrann. The article refers to the debate which took place last Tuesday on the national companies and securities legislation. Mr McCrann makes the point: Discussing the attempt to inject equity into takeovers with the new legislation, he said this had not been achieved. Mr McCrann then goes on to say that that must be understandable because the legislation had not been passed. I would like Mr McCrann to understand that the legislation that we are talking about has been in place for a long while; that is, the national companies and securities legislation, which contains the takeover code. The matters that we were discussing on Tuesday last related to whether there should be an alteration to the code so that there would be at least an opportunity to have a proportionate take-up of shares on offer rather than a pro rata one. That in itself was a technical matter. This legislation is unique in the sense that it comes from what is called the Ministerial Council, being a council of both State and Federal Ministers. It agrees on legislation which is then introduced in this House. In fact, I think it is introduced at least twice a year. That legislation brings into play the recommendations that the Council makes. So, when I am talking about this legislation, I am talking about the national companies and securities legislation which has been before the Parliament. It is a set piece of legislation which is amended from time to time. Mr McCrann failed to understand my complaint that under the existing legislation; that is, the same legislation, the small shareholder was not having an opportunity to take up an offer if there was too much litigation, depending on the interpretation of the legislation. I think Mr McCrann failed to understand that. I propose to write a letter to Mr McCrann. I hope he prints it. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —I do, Madam Speaker. In the course of Question Time, when answering a question from the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards), the Treasurer (Mr Keating) repeated, by reference to imputed exchange rate policies that I followed whilst I was Treasurer, the totally erroneous proposition that Australia'a current account deficit problems were generated during the years the Fraser Government was in office. That is wrong. It is one of the great pieces of mythology that this Government is trying to develop. Government members interjecting- Mr HOWARD —Government members guffaw, stand and protest. I will tell them where it is wrong, and that is the basis of my personal explanation. The average current account deficit for the Fraser years was 3.7 per cent of gross domestic product and for each of the three years the present Treasurer has been in office it has been massively above that figure. Mr Keating —On the same point of order, Madam Speaker: I am very careful about what I say. What I said I will repeat. Mr N.A. Brown —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: May I inquire what this is? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer has sought the call to make a personal explanation, I gather. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —Yes. I claim to have been misrepresented by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). Let me repeat explicitly what I said. In 1981-82 the current account deficit of this country was 6 per cent of the gross domestic product. That is a matter of fact. It is in the Budget Papers. It went on in that mode and only repaired itself temporarily in the recession of 1982-83. In other words, the deterioration in Australia's external accounts and trading position cannot be reflected in some average of the so-called Fraser years but in the situation in the middle of the Fraser years. The Fraser Government let wages explode in 1981 as a cause of that and as a cause of the over-valuation of the exchange rate. Mr N.A. Brown —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: This is all very interesting and very enlightening but it is not a matter for the exchange of comment; it is a matter for personal explanation, and this is not one. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat and the Treasurer will wind up. Mr KEATING —I claim to have been further misrepresented by the fact that the Leader of the Opposition alleges that the figure he gave is a reflection of the conditions which prevailed; it is not. The conditions which prevailed were a consequence of, firstly, his exchange rate policy and, secondly, his wages explosion. Therefore, I was absolutely dead right in everything I said. Mr Howard —Madam Speaker, this is an important matter of public policy, and I seek leave to speak further to my personal explanation. I am simply not prepared to allow the Treasurer to get away with this continued myth that he postulates. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Chair will now explain to the House that personal explanations are made with the indulgence of the Chair and they should be personal explanations. Honourable members must show the House where they personally have been misrepresented. The Leader of the Opposition and the Treasurer in my opinion are taking part in a debate in which one is refuting a point made by the other. The Chair is not prepared to allow any further indulgence. Mr Howard —Madam Speaker, with great respect, I am sorry but I am simply not prepared to allow this. I have a right as a member of this House to seek your indulgence. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Chair is not giving indulgence for any further debate. Mr Howard —Madam Speaker, are you saying that you are not prepared to give me the customary indulgence as Leader of the Opposition to correct a misrepresentation? Madam SPEAKER —I am saying that I have given indulgence to the Leader of the Opposition and I have given indulgence to the Treasurer. As far as I am concerned we are going to get into a total debating situation where each rebuts the other. Bill presented by Mr Uren, and read a first time. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services)(2.58) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will replace the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976 and provide for continuation of a Commonwealth program of general purpose financial assistance for local government in the States and the Northern Territory. I explained on 10 April that the Government, following consultation with the States and local government, had accepted the overall finding of the National Inquiry into Local Government Finance that the Commonwealth should maintain a program of general purpose support for local government but that the character of the program should be changed in certain respects. This Bill gives effect to those changes which are necessary to bring about a gradual improvement in the effectiveness and equity of the program. I am particularly pleased to be able to introduce this legislation, which consolidates past achievements and lays the foundation for future progress. As a Minister in the Whitlam Government I was associated with the development of the first Bill which provided for Commonwealth financial assistance for local government. The Grants Commission Act 1973 was an historic breakthrough in inter-government financial relations. It created the precedent for direct Commonwealth involvement in the field of local government. To the credit of the Fraser Government, our initiative in 1973 was built upon and improved through the introduction in 1976 of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act. The main improvements related to the provision of funds for every council and the introduction of a system for allocation of funds by local government grants commissions in each State. This Bill introduces some changes designed to bring stability, clarity and accountability to the allocation of untied grants to local councils. Fundamentally, it represents continuation of a bipartisan commitment to the development of local government. The Hawke Government is active across a number of fronts in strengthening local government capabilities and in forstering co-operative inter-government relations. We recognise the important contribution that the local government makes in its own right and through its involvement in Commonwealth-sponsored programs to social and economic development. We value the diversity, decentralisation and responsiveness of local government. We understand how local government has been evolving as a sophisticated, multi-functional level of community government in Australia. In this regard, we have sought the participation of local government on the Economic Planning Advisory Council. We have upgraded the Office of Local Government for the purpose of strengthening links and improving information exchange among the three spheres of government. We have participated actively through the Local Government Ministers Conference on inter-governmental task forces concerned with the role of local government in economic development and in community development. We have sponsored over the last three years through the local government development program some 400 projects designed to spread the best ideas and practices throughout the local government system. We have launched a series of national awards for innovations in local government and we have pursued the constitutional recognition of local government. These various initiatives come together for the mutual benefit of the Commonwealth, the States and local government. For all concerned, past barriers to communication and consultation are breaking down. Co-operation and trust is building up. From the Commonwealth perspective, and in the light of the fact that Federal Government expenditure flowing to local government exceeds $1 billion, the improving relations allow us to achieve more cost effective returns for the nation's investment in the local government system. Over half of that Commonwealth contribution to local government is in the form of untied grants. This Bill provides for continuity and growth in the provision of these grants but in so doing it establishes a new basis for the provision of funds. Under the Act that is being replaced, the grants for local government were tied to a percentage of personal income tax receipts. This formula led to great variations in funding from year to year and created difficulties in local government's relationship with the States. No such linkage will be provided in the new Act. Instead the Bill provides for a base level of funding that is equivalent to the level of funding received by local government in the States and the Northern Territory in 1985-86 plus an adjustment to bring Northern Territory per capita payments into line with those in the States. This provides a base figure of $540.9m. The Bill provides that the actual payment for local government in 1986-87 shall be this base figure multiplied by either the increase in the consumer price index for that year or by the percentage change in Commonwealth general purpose payments to the States, whichever is the greater. The payment calculations for 1987-88 shall be the same as those for 1986-87. For all subsequent years payment calculations will be based simply on the percentage change in Commonwealth general purpose payments to the States. That is, local government will be treated no less favourably than the States in terms of periodic adjustments to the funding level of the program. These new financial arrangements will provide a stable financial base from which local government will be able to plan with a greater degree of certainty than under the previous arrangement. The volatility that characterised the previous tax sharing arrangements will be eliminated. As under the previous Act, the Bill provides for the payments for local government to be made to each State in one lump sum early in the financial year. If the estimates on which the grants are made turn out to be incorrect there is provision for a subsequent adjustment to be made to the grant. This would normally occur through an adjustment to the following year's grant. Such an adjustment might be necessary if, for instance, the rate of inflation turns out to be lower than anticipated. Each State's share of the total grant will, from 1989-90 onwards, be equal to that State's share of the Australian population. In the two years before then, the shares of each State will be gradually changed from the present relativities to a population basis. As a result of these changes Victoria and South Australia will increase their share of the grants. The other States will reduce their share but in such a way that there will be no reduction in the payment to any of these States in money terms from one year to the next. The principal objective of this program is to provide financial assistance to those local councils who are most disadvantaged with respect to their ability to raise revenue and to provide services. In attaining this objective, the States will be required to allocate funds in such a way as to equalise each local council's ability to undertake its functions with respect to the average standard performance of other local councils in the State concerned. At the same time the Government recognises that local government, as a whole, has a restricted base from which to raise revenue to finance its expanding functions. Because of this the Government has ensured that every council continues to receive benefits under the program. The legislation provides that the grant received by any council will be at least the amount it would have been entitled to if 30 per cent of the funds available to each State had been distributed among local councils on a straight per capita basis. In each State a Local Government Grants Commission will continue to be responsible for determining the allocation of funds among local councils. A new requirement is that eventually each Grants Commission must have at least two members who are, or have been, associated with local government in that State. The Bill requires that these Grants Commissions hold public hearings and that at least once every three years they publish a report setting out details of the methods they use in recommending allocations among local councils. The Grants Commissions are also required to observe principles that are established under the Act for the purpose of allocating amounts among local councils. It is recognised that these principles will take some time to develop and to put into effect. Consequently the Bill allows five years for the introduction of such principles. In the meantime Grants Commissions are required to observe the methods of allocating amounts used under the preceding Act or, alternatively, any agreement that has been reached between the responsible State Minister and the Commonwealth Minister. The development of principles for the purpose of allocating funds between local councils is designed to bring an element of uniformity between States without requiring that every State adopt exactly the same principles. It is intended that these principles will be drawn up by each State in accordance with the purposes of the legislation and submitted to me as the responsible Commonwealth Minister for approval. This submission is required by 1 July 1987. In the event that a State refuses to draw up principles or draws up principles which do not accord with the purposes of the Act, there is a fallback power of the Commonwealth Minister to determine the principles for that State. The Bill provides for the varying, revoking and reviewing and of the principles. The review mechanisms will enable the principles to be kept fully up to date with improvements in the practices of the Grants Commissions and with their understandings of the results of their distributions. A State will not be entitled to a payment in any one year unless the responsible Commonwealth Minister, is satisfied that allocations of funds have been made in accordance with approved principles or in accordance with the alternative arrangements outlined above. The new Act will result in a redistribution of funds provided under this program to the more needy councils. This is one of its prime objectives. The Government however is concerned to ensure that changes are made gradually-I stress that-so that councils will have time to adjust to the new arrangements. It is for this reason that the Bill provides for up to five years for changes to occur in the equalisation arrangements and in the method of calculating per capita entitlements. It is for this reason also that the changes in State shares of grants are to be phased in. The Bill is different from its predecessor in that it provides for an important role for local government itself to participate in establishing the principles which will govern the allocation of funds between local councils. It also provides for local government to be represented in any review of the Act that the Minister may require after 30 June 1992. This Bill provides important advances on the arrangements that were introduced under the Whitlam Government and improved upon by the Fraser Government. It will provide continuity and certainty for an important element of local government finance while at the same time providing for a more equitable distribution of funds than has previously occurred. Before I commend the Bill to the House might I say how proud I am to be associated with it. I said earlier that I was the Minister in the Whitlam Government who was associated with the development of the first Bill which gave untied Federal funds to local government. In our first year, the financial year 1974-75, we made $56m available. This year, local government will receive at least $577m in untied funds-over $1 billion in tied and untied funds-which is more than a 50 per cent increase on funds allocated in the last year of the Fraser Government. When I retire as a Minister of the Hawke Government at the end of this Parliament, whether it be in late 1987 or in early 1988, I will have spent eight years as the Minister responsible for local Government. During those years from the early 1970s, local government has evolved from authorities dealing with roads, gutters, drains and garbage to increasingly sophisticated multi-factional and multi-functional authorities dealing with human and community services. That evolvement is a healthy process because local government is nearest to the people. It is my belief that people should have a greater say over the governing of their lives. I have been an anti-centralist all my political life so it gives me great pride to see the evolutionary process of local government and I think it is a healthy aspect in our democratic process to see it emerging. May this Bill encourage that continuity of development. I commend the Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. 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 petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth that persistent rumour suggest that the Hawke Government intends to reduce Government expenditure by contracting or eliminating programs for war veterans and war widows. Your Petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment and that of previous Governments to ex-servicemen and women by: Ensure no additional cut-backs will be made to the portfolio of Veterans' Affairs. Review the previous cut-backs in such areas as the travel allowances, dental scheme and repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Proceed with abolishing more stringent conditions applying to the granting of the TPI pension. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale,Mr Blunt,Mr Dobie,Mr Halverson 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 respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the failure of the government to honour its election promises to pensioners. In particular those promises relate to the following commitments: 1. That within three years of its election to office, a Hawke Labor Government would raise the level of the standard pension to 25% of Average Weekly Earnings; 2. That the lag time between the announcement of the Consumer Price Index figures and the subsequent adjustment of pension would be reduced to one month, and 3. That the disproportionate tax burden borne by low income earners would be lifted. None of these promises has been honoured to date. Your petitioners are extremely angry at the failure of the Government to live up to its commitments and as in duty bound will ever pray that these serious omissions will be given the attention they deserve. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale,Mr Lee,Mr Barry Jones,Mr Macphee and Mr Sharp. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the Hawke Government should; pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices on 1 March 1986; not increase or extend fuel taxes; and maintain its tax cut commitments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment to the Import Parity Pricing policy. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite,Mr Connolly,Mr Ruddock and Mr Tuckey. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia 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 divisions 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,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr McArthur and Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned are deeply concerned that under the guise of ceasefire the Government of Sri Lanka has largely militarised Tamil regions and has now resorted to airship attacks in highly populated areas and indiscriminate killings of civilians which is seen even by the Indian Foreign Minister as having genocidal tendencies. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will call upon the Government to: 1. Intercede with the Government of Sri Lanka to desist from airship attacks and seeking a military solution; 2. To offer refuge under humanitarian and compassionate programmes, to Tamils who are fleeing from the violence; 3 Abandon all direct and indirect forms of repatriation of any Tamil who has sought refuge in Australia and grant them meaningful assistance to resettle; 4. As a member of the Commonwealth, persuade the Government of Sri Lanka to pursue a political solution which will allow the Tamils to live in peace and dignity. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hollis,Mr Ruddock and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows: That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent,Mr Milton and Mr Staples. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petitions of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the humble petitioners respectfully believe that the representatives in Australia of the African National Congress and the South West Africa Peoples Organisation should not have to suffer unending financial problems related to the cost of rent, food and clothing, and the maintenance of two small offices run on the most austere basis. Your petitioners therefore pray and urge the provision of: 1. Official recognition of A.N.C. and S.W.A.P.O. as the legitimate representatives of the people of South Africa and Namibia. 2. Financial support to the offices and representatives of the African National Congress and the South West African Peoples Organisation to promote the anti-Apartheid cause. 3. Additional financial support for the official representatives of the A.N.C. and S.W.A.P.O. to assist the humanitarian needs of Namibian and South African refugees who are victims of Apartheid. 4. Scholarships for South African and Namibian refugees. These to be provided through the A.N.C. and S.W.A.P.O. education departments. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Milton and Mr Scott. 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: We are opposed to the imposition of a Capital Gains Tax. Your petitioners humbly pray: That the honourable House repeal any Act and reject any Bill which imposes this disincentive to economic growth. 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 in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: (a) That Australia's record high interest rates, currently at levels up to four times higher than competitor O.E.C.D. member countries, are causing severe hardship and damage to this nation's small business and farm sectors. (b) unless immediately reduced these artificially boosted interest levels will inflict irreparable harm to the national economy. (c) the individual initiative and job creation potential of the small business sector is in danger of being permanently crippled. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: (1) The Government will immediately reverse its interventionist policy which is artificially boosting interest rates in Australia to their highest level in 50 years. (2) The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, and the Treasurer, Mr Keating, will honour their 1983 election pledge to bring interest rates down from their then level of 12.5 per cent. (3) The Australian dollar will be allowed to float to find its own level in accordance with the Government's stated de-regulation objectives. by Mr Fife. To the honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth: We call on the Federal Government to introduce a freeze on interest rates to be charged on housing loans by banking and non-banking institutions. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Jull. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the fact that the lack of a Medicare Office in Wyong is seriously inconveniencing the residents of Wyong Shire. Your petitioners therefore request that a Medicare Office is established in Wyong as soon as possible. by Mr Lee. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That they oppose the construction of any additional nuclear reactor at the Australian Atomic Energy Establishment at Lucas Heights in New South Wales, or any site within Australia. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government of Australia will not construct an additional nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights or within Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Ms McHugh. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they oppose the construction of any additional nuclear reactor at the Australian Atomic Energy Establishment at Lucas Heights in New South Wales. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government of Australia will not construct another nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights, or, within Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Ms McHugh. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they oppose the construction of any additional nuclear reactor at the Australian Atomic Energy Establishment at Lucas Heights in New South Wales. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government of Australia will not construct an additional nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Sutherland Shire and New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they oppose the construction of any additional nuclear reactor at the Australian Atomic Energy Establishment at Lucas Heights in New South Wales. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government of Australia will not construct an additional nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights. 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 certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the current policies of the Community Arts Board of the Australia Council are disadvantaging regional residents (country and outer metropolitan) with regard to the provision of access to art forms, in particular to tours of professional performing arts. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Federal Government will allocate sufficient funds to the Australia Council specifically to ensure ongoing funding to State Arts Councils to enable those organizations to maintain access to performing and other arts activities in country and outer metropolitan areas. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Milton. To the Honourable the 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 the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned, plead that Parliament becomes aware that the public has no legal right to influence the setting of standards for television programming, that we deplore the new standards which came into force on 1st February, and that we call on Parliament to amend the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942, section 16 (2), so that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, when determining television standards, and screening hours, shall consult with the Australian people: because at present the Tribunal is compelled by law to consult only with television stations on these matters, because the new standards are a result of such consultation, and have already been implemented without public discussion, because the new standards are ambiguous, and without definition, because the new standards are composed of modifying terms which circumvent the proscriptions, because the media is only motivated by aspirations of pecuniary superiority, because, in contrast, the public is only motivated by their wish to exercise pastoral care over the nurturing home environment of their children, because we believe that the standards wrongly ascribe extreme importance to ``the storyline'' of a film screened, because we believe that the standards wrongly ascribe total unimportance to the effects of viewing, especially violent films, on the young, the impressionable, the immature, the unstable, or the socially disadvantaged, because we refuse to accept the media-imposed assessment of community standards, and because we wish to impart our demand to be consulted, our demand to have legal status in decision-making, and the right to counsel those whose decisions so deeply affect our homes. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter your earnest attention. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Shack. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned that Australia's important horticultural industry is being severely disadvantaged by unnecessarily rising production costs. Many Federal and State Government regulations, excessive taxes and charges are damaging the ability of horticultural growers to maintain supplies of food and plant products to Australian families at a realistic cost. Widespread unemployment will result if horticultural producers are further depressed. The undersigned humbly petition the Parliaments of Australia, its States and Territories, to take all measures within their powers to reduce the burden of imposed costs and regulation, allowing Australian horticultural growers to develop production potential so the nation, as a whole, can share the benefits of the resulting growth and prosperity. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's proposal to bring about a reduction in the amount payable under the present Family Allowance Scheme, that the House of Representatives assembled oppose such a move, on the evidence of its impact upon the family unit. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek to restore payments to the former level. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. For 1988 to be proclaimed the ``First International Earth Repair Year'' (FIERY) as an international aspect of the Australian Bicentenary activities. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That deterioration of the total global environment is continuing at an increasing rate; that important environmental resources vital to human livelihood such as trees, soil and water are decreasing at an alarming rate; that there is a need for educating all people to assume a greater responsibility for the conservation, sustainable use and maintenance of vital resources; that dynamic and active initiatives are needed to conserve and renew the total environment; and that protecting, conserving and repairing the Earth can unite all people and nations in co-operative action for survival; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: Propose to the United Nations General Assembly at its 41st Session in September 1986 that 1988 be proclaimed the ``First International Earth Repair Year'' (FIERY) as a vital action to ignite global co-operation for World peace. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The Petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the koala declared an endangered species and given the proper protection of the Commonwealth. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House declare that the koala may not be exported from this country and that urgent re-vegetation of their habitats be carried out. Your petitioners also humbly pray that Commonwealth Government funds will be made available for research into the disease Chlamydia Psittaci which is killing the koala. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows that- in this International Year of Peace, 1986, the world needs a nuclear test moratorium by the United States, the Soviet Union, France and other nuclear testing powers that such a moratorium would create a favourable climate and basis for the negotiation of a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty that such a Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty would be the first vital step to nuclear disarmament impede the development of new nuclear weapons decrease the reliance upon an unstable nuclear strategy inhibit the spread of nuclear weapons. Your petitioners therefore ask that the Australian Government be urged to: 1. Use its influence with the United States Government to encourage it to join the moratorium on nuclear testing begun by the Soviet Union on 6 August 1985. 2. Use its influence in all forums to encourage other nuclear nations to join the Nuclear Test Moratorium. 3. Use its influence in all forums to encourage non-nuclear nations to demand the establishment of a Nuclear Test Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; and to the Australian Government. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out that a comprehensive ban on all nuclear weapon tests in all environments for all time would be a vital first step towards: inhibiting the addition of more and more sophisticated and destabilising nuclear weapons to the world's arsenals; arresting the extension of the arms race to outer space; upholding the provisions of existing treaties and agreements. Your petitioners humbly pray that: 1. The Australian Government-(a) take new initiatives to encourage all member states of the United Nations-especially the governments of nuclear weapon states-to conclude at an early stage a treaty banning all nuclear weapon tests in all environments for all time; (b) call on all nuclear weapon states to declare an immediate moratorium on all nuclear weapons tests pending conclusion of a CTB. 2. All Federal members of parliament and senators make strong representations to the Australian Government to act towards these goals. 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 Australia respectfully showeth: Our alarm with the continued spiralling cost of commodities brought about we believe, by the monopolisation of retail outlets by multi and transnational consortiums. We would ask the government to legislate, effective price control and anti monopoly measures to prevent further erosion of the living standards of the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, seek your most urgent action to rectify this deep concern to the community. 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: The Hawke Government's Bill of Rights seeks to make changes in the constitutional balance in Australia by intruding into the affairs of individuals and of State and Local Governments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal the Bill of Rights legislation and not restrict the individual freedoms of Australians and its present justice system, nor in any underhand way centralise power in our three tier system of Government. 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 Farrer electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's Bill of Rights seeks to make changes in the constitutional balance in Australia by intruding into the affairs of individuals and of State and Local Governments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal the Bill of Rights legislation and not restrict the individual freedoms of Australians and its present justice system, nor in any underhand way centralise power in our three tier system of Government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tim Fischer. 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 Hawke Labor Government's Bill of Rights seeks to make changes in the constitutional balance in Australia by intruding into the affairs of individuals and of State and Local Governments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal the Bill of Rights legislation and not restrict the individual freedoms of Australians and its present justice system, nor in any underhand way centralise power in our three tier system of Government. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Sharp. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Queensland respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's Bill of Rights seeks to make changes in the constitutional balance in Australia by intruding into the affairs of individuals and of State and Local Governments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal the Bill of Rights legislation and not restrict the individual freedoms of Australians and the present justice system in this country or in any underhand way centralise power in our three tier system of Government. 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 of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they strongly support the establishment of the Western Sydney State University as recommended in the Parry Report and call upon the House to establish the Western Sydney State University in conjunction with the New South Wales Government. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Free,Mr Grace and Mr Price. 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 request that: The world's resources be redirected to the relief of human suffering, starvation, poverty and disease. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Stop spending taxpayers money on self promotion through high cost high profile but superficial policy on nuclear disarmament and make a genuine bi-partisan commitment to positive and practical policies designed to achieve progressive world-wide nuclear disarmament. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain electors of Dawson shows that the proposed Bill of Rights- overlooks basic rights concerning union membership, education, and private property, is a basis for massive intrusion into State responsibilities, establishes a Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission with powers similar to a Court but without accepted legal procedures and protections for the accused, and provides no avenue of appeal against decisions of the HR&EOC. The petition further shows that fundamental protection of human rights is already to be found in the Courts, in tolerance, in fair play, belief in democratic institutions, and in support for the rule of law. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Parliament will not allow the Australian Bill of Rights Bill to pass into law. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled: We, the undersigned petitioners of the electorate of Farrer, do respectfully show our opposition to the proposed Fringe Benefits Tax, as it applies to the purchase of company cars. Such a tax will be an additional burden upon small businesses, and will adversely affect the Australian car industry, including component manufacturers. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tim Fischer. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain electors of the Division of Cowper respectfully sheweth: That the Bill of Rights Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill, if passed by the Parliament, will undermine human and civil rights in Australia; will attack the institution of the family in our country, and will destroy States Rights and the federal nature of our Commonwealth. Your petitioners humbly pray that: The Parliament rejects these Bills; abolishes the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and moves to withdraw ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Sharp. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Page electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor government's productivity-superannuation accord with the ACTU and its support of the superannuation claims of the trade union movement will create an imbalance in industrial power and distort the future development of the Australian economy. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject the superannuation claim of the trade union movement, and allow superannuation to develop without trade union domination. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Robinson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Queensland respectfully showeth that: The total disallowance by the Hawke Labor Government of tax deductibility for entertainment and hospitality expenses will unfairly penalise Australian business and cost thousands of jobs for young and unskilled people. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Abandon its total ban on entertainment expenses and allow tax deductibility for legitimate and necessary expenses. 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 Somerset Dam in the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That we object to the hasty and ill conceived relocation of the public telephone facility at Somerset Dam on the grounds that- (a) it does not meet the needs of the area; (b) it does not have the support of the local Community; (c) it is open to vandalism; (d) it is poorly lit. Your petitioners therefore request that: A further public telephone service be made available at the previous location or if this is not possible that the present public telephone service be resited at its previous location. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Shire of Caboolture 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 ill-considered capital gains tax proposal. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Shire of Caboolture respectfully showeth: The ban by the Hawke Socialist Government on negative gearing and restrictions on property depreciation will adversely affect thousands of disadvantaged people who rent their homes. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: End its ill-considered and discriminatory policy on rented property and allow depreciation on all buildings used to produce rental income. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal system of Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Forces, 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 the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal the Bill of Rights legislation forthwith. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Fisher respectfully showeth that: Whereas the present Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has purported to present the Title Deeds to Ayers Rock in Central Australia, in reality 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 had no mandate from the citizens of the Commonwealth to act in such a disgraceful manner, Whereas the present Government claims to be totally opposed to apartheid (separate development) in South Africa but purported to hand 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 reverse this outrage and preserve the democratic traditions of Australia, 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 divisions 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Fisher respectfully showeth: That we deplore the discriminatory tax proposals as outlined in the Government's ``White Paper'' and the Government's preferred option on proposed new and widened tax proposals as so outlined, namely: Capital Gains tax Hidden Death tax described as ``Capital Gains tax after death'' Gift tax Increased Company tax Employer taxes on employees' employment benefits. All such taxes will discriminate against and inhibit progress, growth and employment throughout the nation. They will attack hardworking people who have built up their assets; they will discourage thrift; they will inhibit development; they will treat unfairly all who plan for the future; they will cause trouble and expense in arriving at the value of their assets; they will discourage industry and punish achievement. We ask that the tax proposals be rejected. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Socialist Government be called upon to remove the unjust and cruel Assets Test; That the Assets Test discriminates grossly against those people living on acreage blocks or in rural areas; That the introduction of the Government's grab for the assets of senior citizens is condemned as un-Australian; That the Government is requested to reconsider the Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of 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 governments 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act 1953. Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Watson. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The history of the Government's delay, failure and incompetence in coming to grips with organised crime. 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 SPENDER(North Sydney)(3.21) —When one considers the history of this Government's failure to come to grips with organised crime, no better starting place is to be found than a question which was put to the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) by his own side on 17 May 1983. It wound up with these words: What is the Government doing to combat organised crime in Australia? The Minister's answer included these immortal words: I assure the House that under this Government there will be no let-up in the attack on organised crime in this country. The immoral behaviour of people who are participating in this field of criminal activity is costing decent, ordinary tax-paying Australians hundreds of millions of dollars that ought to have been used for much better purposes in this country. We will not let up in our efforts to make sure that all these inquiries, both that being conducted by Costigan and those being conducted by other commissioners, are concluded. The black humour is inherent in the difference between the illusion and the reality. The illusion is a government that is in control, that is determined, aggressive, swift to action, vigilant in response and which has a comprehensive plan in its pocket. The reality is vacillation, incompetence and a government that acts with the speed and cutting edge of a stranded jellyfish and which has no plans, no apparent understanding of the dimensions of the problem that organised crime presents to this country and the damage and dangers that it presents to the fabric of our society. Let me prove that contention beyond reasonable doubt by focusing upon three elements; four if time permits. These are, the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Telephone Interceptions report and the two major weapons that are available for use against organised crime, forfeiture of assets and the interception of telephone calls between criminals. We in this House know the history of the Stewart report into the Age tape materials but it is worth while to remind honourable members, the public and the Government how it came about. When these materials surfaced, the importance of them was raised by the Opposition and others. A campaign of denigration, orchestrated by the Government, was conducted against all those who raised these materials and questioned the need to examine them. It was carefully orchestrated and I can do no better than to start with the then Attorney-General who, on 28 February 1984, along with the rest of the Government, virtually dismissed these materials out of hand. He stated: I cannot emphasise too strongly the dubious status of the material in question . . . the material is therefore completely anonymous and completely unauthenticated. He then went on to say on the same day: The way in which the whole matter has been developed and manipulated has been against the public interest. It has outraged privacy and threatens basic human rights. After seeing the report what did the then Attorney-General say about the public interest? He said much more at a later stage, on 21 August 1984, when he made his tabling statement on the Special Prosecutor's report on Age tape materials. He stated: Finally on this aspect, I wish to state categorically that the Government would reject any proposal that Mr Temby's report justifies or requires a special Royal Commission be appointed in relation to the Age materials. I emphasise `reject any proposal'. He continued: Mr Temby makes no such recommendation, but in any case the matter is one for the Government to decide. The Government believes that the investigations already made by or under the Special Prosecutor, and the investigations and consideration made or being undertaken by Mr Justice Stewart and the Senate Select Committee between them amply cover all significant issues requiring investigation at this stage. What does the then Attorney-General say now about the need for a royal commission? What does he say now about authentication? On the same day in the same speech he said: The reputations of individuals have been slandered in the Parliaments of the Commonwealth, NSW and Queensland, under privilege based on those parliamentary statements by the media. The damage and injury done to the targets of what has patently been an orchestrated co-ordinated campaign is to a significant extent irretrievable, and would have been known to be irretrievable. I say nothing against the senator personally. He is not here. But I will say this: When it comes to a campaign of denigration, when it comes to orchestrating vilification, when it comes to a campaign of disinformation, on this side of the House-even if we were minded to do so, which we are not-we would not be able to compete with this Government. The Government recourses, whenever need be, to a campaign of vilification and denigration as it did when it sought to prevent an inquiry being conducted into the Age tape materials. On 21 August the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Evans, stated: Six months later, the question of authenticity remains. The dubious statement of the material has not really changed since I referred to it in my statement on 28 February. The material remains anonymous and unauthenticated. What now of authenticity? Lastly, I quote the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) who, on 22 March 1985 in this House, stated: As I understand the honourable member's attack-- he was referring to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown)- today, he says the 31 police involved in the making of the tapes should be exempted because by doing so there would be an opportunity to prosecute criminals and unless indemnities are given we might not be able to do that. That is not the evidence . . . the evidence is old and obsolete and goes back to a period between 4 and 8 years ago. Oh yes, some of it is old but it is not obsolete. We all know that because we now have the reports. This old, obsolete, dubious and unauthenticated evidence was disclosed yesterday by the Attorney-General as follows: . . . considerable detail of possible criminal offences identified by the Royal Commission in the course of its enquiry. Those offences relate to breaches of Federal and State law. The incontrovertible facts are: Firstly, the Government had in its possession the Age tape material, if not all of the material available to Mr Justice Stewart a good bit of it. Secondly, this material was voluminous, systematic in the way in which it had been compiled and obviously, one would think, prepared by the police unless it was one of the most supreme forgeries since the Hitler diaries. Thirdly, on any reading the material concerned criminal activities of a most grave kind. Fourthly, it was perfectly apparent to any sensible person that only through a royal commission with power to grant or recommend appropriate indemnities would it be possible to authenticate the material. There would have been no royal commission without Opposition pressure. Yet, for over a year, the Government resisted this course. The resistance is explicable only by the most extreme incompetence or by a fear in government circles that the authentication of the material could be politically damaging. I leave the public to judge which of those explanations is the right one. Either condemns the Government. The Commission was finally established by the Federal Government, as a result of unremitting opposition and public pressure, on 29 March 1985, just a few days after the Attorney-General had made his latest public protestation against the need for a commission. Yesterday the report was tabled. The Attorney-General had the opportunity to make a comprehensive statement about the Government's plans and strategies to combat organised crime and how Mr Justice Stewart's work complemented those plans and strategies. Instead, we got a one and a half page statement that assures us that the recommendations will be given urgent consideration. Just how urgent that consideration is likely to be can be measured by the lamentably slow, ill-conceived and incompetent way the Government has dealt with other major recommendations. I shall select the two that I mentioned earlier. Firstly, it will be recalled that recommendation No. 1 of the report of Mr Justice Stewart stated: . . . amendments to legislation to extend the power to conduct telephone interceptions to police forces of the States and Territories and the National Crime Authority be made as soon as possible. The use of intercepts is of crucial importance and the value is well known. It is explained by Mr Justice Stewart and I will quote briefly what he has to say on the subject. He stated: It has been said by some members of the community that telephone interceptions are not a good tool in the fight against crime. It is implied that telephone intercepts will lose their effectiveness with time as criminals become more aware of their use by law enforcement agencies and modify their procedures in order to avoid detection by these means. The Commission does not share this view. The evidence of the use of telephone interceptions and the operations revealed in the course of its inquiry leaves the Commission in no doubt about the effectiveness of the use of the interception of telephone conversations. That quote is taken from paragraph 341 of the report. We are not dealing with a novel proposition, for over three years ago Mr Justice Stewart, in February 1983, in his report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking, criticised the narrowness of the interception powers and recommended: A judge should be empowered to issue a warrant for the interception of telephone conversations where the activities of persons are such as point to the likely existence of a criminal scheme or conspiracy involving organised criminals. It should not be restricted to the commission of certain narcotic offences as presently provided. What then happened? Special Prosecutor Redlich recommended amendments to enlarge interception powers in his report of 7 September 1983. Over three years later, nothing has happened. What hope is there for the recommendations made by Mr Justice Stewart this time? There are 12 recommendations in his report, 10 of which deal with telephone intercepts. We have this knowledge, however: The Government is considering some amendments. These amendments have been considered by it and are surfacing precisely one year after the drug summit at which they were raised and spoken of by the Government. Apparently they are to be restricted to drug related offences. It seems that murder, extortion, kidnapping, illegal gambling, organised prostitution and other trifling activities are such that we should not worry too much about them and should put them to one side. Of course, drug running and drug addiction and their consequences are terrible for our society, but are these other offences to be put to one side? Is there any logical justification for saying: `Yes, there should be intercepts in relation to one class of offence but not to others'? There is none, as Mr Justice Stewart points out in the most compelling terms in his report when at page 343 he states: The Commission recommends strongly that the limitations on the use of telephone interceptions for drug trafficking offences only be removed. In the view of the Commission the confinement of the use of telephone interceptions to such offences is and always has been illogical. How long is it going to take? Is it going to take another three years before the Government comes to grips with this concept? We should at least get an answer from the Government-either yes or no-to the proposition. It does not need time; it has had it in front of it for years. Let me now deal briefly with the forfeiture of assets. This subject was not relevant to Mr Justice Stewart's terms of reference. It has been recommended by Special Prosecutor Gyles and by Mr Costigan in his final report of 26 October 1984. The Special Minister of State on 21 May, referring to recommendations that had been made at a meeting on 2 May this year, that is, exactly one year ago, said: The Standing Committee of Attorneys-General considered model drafting instructions prepared by the Commonwealth. The Standing Committee also agreed to the setting up of a joint working party of officials in conjunctions with the Australian Police Ministers Council to enable the matter to be finalised as soon as possible. That was one year ago. A year and a half after Costigan reported we are still waiting for action on that recommendation. Even New South Wales, the State in which organised crime has the greatest penetration, has introduced a law called the Crime (Confiscation of Profits) Act 1985. It is on the statute book. What has this Government done about it? Nothing at all! It talks and it talks and it talks and says that it is under urgent consideration and that it will consider it as soon as possible. It is a government without a strategy, without a plan, without a sense of direction or purpose or understanding of the dimensions of the war waged on Australians by organised crime. I refer, lastly, to the National Crime Authority. I will quote from criticisms made by Mr Moffitt, a Queen's Counsel, formerly Mr Justice Moffitt, who himself conducted a lengthy inquiry into organised crime. It deals with one of the principal weaknesses of the National Crime Authority and states: The principal weaknesses of the NCA as constituted can be summed up as excessive and debilitating political control and veto . . . He states that in his book A Quarter to Midnight. He continues: There are likely to be cases-as there have in the past-where persons close to political party interests are under investigation either directly or collaterally. Can the public have the confidence that the power or maybe the veto will be exercised in those cases as it would be if left to an independent authority? The answer is, of course, that the public cannot have that confidence. We will not hear from the Minister any explanation of why forfeiture of assets has not been dealt with or why it has been on the books for so long. We will not hear any answer as to why interception powers have not been considered and why the legislation has not been brought forward to extend interception powers to other forms of criminal activity. No it is odds on that all we will get from the Minister is a parade of words which will give no indication of any comprehensive plan by this Government to deal with organised crime. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(3.36) —I suspect that everybody in the Australian Labor Party wishes that we could adopt the very high moral standards that we understand are now taken by the Liberal Party of Australia in opposition-certainly not the stand it took in government. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) says that one of the major criticisms of the National Crime Authority is that there could be some undue political influence on the operations of the National Crime Authority. Before he says that, or makes that accusation or allegation, he should bring forward just one shred of evidence that in the last two years any government around Australia, including this one, has done anything to interfere with the operations of the National Crime Authority. That includes the seeking of references by the National Crime Authority, either from this Government or any other government in Australia. Every reference sought by the National Crime Authority has been granted forthwith; so there has been no political control of the National Crime Authority. Mr Spender —Do you guarantee it won't happen? Mr YOUNG —The honourable member for North Sydney asks whether I will give a guarantee. Hopefully I will not be the Special Minister of State forever. If there is a reshuffle I could go up the ladder. This is really a Ministry of bad news! I now refer to the couple of issues raised by the honourable member for North Sydney. He talked about telephone intercepts. Everyone has his own view. I do not think that anybody in this Parliament, certainly no one that I know of, is doing anything consciously to encourage criminal activity in this country. In fact, I believe we have a very good Parliament which takes a very healthy and constructive attitude to what we ought to be doing. The powers of telephone intercept and how they should be expanded have been around for a long time. I have said this in debate previously. The Fraser Government had before it a proposition for extending telephone intercepts to the States for four years, from 1979 to 1983; and nothing was done by the Fraser Government. It found it too difficult. Mr Hawker —Is that your excuse? Mr YOUNG —No, it is not the excuse at all because at the drug summit of 1985 the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said to the States: `We are prepared to amend the Act to extend telephone intercepts to give you the same powers as the Australian Federal Police; that is, on drug related matters you should have the same powers as the Federal Police'. The Bill has been drafted and sent to the States for discussion. Honourable members who follow the newspapers interstate will see that a fairly lively discussion is going on in some States. One cannot identify the States and their views on this matter by their political persuasions because, across the board, people have different views. It is a bit like the Australia Card. One would have thought, with the evidence lying behind it, that perhaps the Australia Card could eradicate some element of tax evasion in this country, but there are a lot of people in the honourable member's Party who are opposed to the establishment of the Australia Card. I would think that there are a lot of people, I might say to the honourable member for North Sydney, in his Party who might have a slightly different view from his about how far telephone intercepts should be extended. There are certainly a lot of people in his profession who are opposed to the wholesale extension of telephone intercepts. Mr Spender —I did not use that expression. Mr YOUNG —No. Justice Stewart in his report has now raised a new element about extending the powers of intercept to deal with other criminal activity as far as the States are concerned. I would think that that takes the debate to a new level. Mr Spender —What about the Federal Government? Mr YOUNG —As far as the Federal Government is concerned, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) said it will be looked at urgently, and it will be. If we need all these devices to fight criminal activity in Australia, it has to be looked at urgently, and it will be. But it does raise the level of debate about the extension of telephone interceptions to the States, where we want to extend them. We can say that we want to extend them, but if a State says it does not want them we have a different ball game altogether on our hands. As the honourable member knows, the forfeiture of assets is not in my realm of responsibility. Nevertheless, there is great debate about how the laws on the forfeiture of assets ought to apply. For instance, if a person who has accrued massive assets-say, $20m-is convicted of a drug-related offence which is directly related to the accrual of $0.5m, does he lose the $20m or the $0.5m? If we have to wait until we have criminal conviction, will he have time to disburse all his assets so that by the time we have the conviction there are no assets there to confiscate? These are some of the matters which are being debated by members of the honourable member's profession in regard to the way in which the law in Australia ought to apply. Of course, there are some provisions in the Customs Act about the forfeiture of assets, but people around the world, in the United Kingdom and the United States of America, have different attitudes about how such provisions ought to apply. Certainly these differing and strongly held views about the way the law ought to be drafted in Australia have opened my eyes. So it is not as if the charge is that we have put it all in the too-hard basket and are not going to do anything about it. The fact is that we must consider many things in the drafting of these matters and in putting together a package covering telephone interception, the forfeiture of assets and extradition, which I will deal with in a moment. They are time consuming measures which have to be dealt with sophisticatedly, intelligently and, in the case of our Federal system, co-operatively with the States. Whilst these matters are points of debate, I must say to the honourable member for North Sydney that it hardly raises the level of debate to charge this Government with some sort of negligence about its chase of criminal activity or its curtailment of criminal activity in this country. The minimising of criminal activity in this country does not revolve around one or two laws. The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police is quite frequently in my office talking about these matters. He says to me every year: `Minister, we need more resources to cope with the sorts of problems that have developed in Australia. If you want us to give these sorts of things the priority which the Government talks about, we cannot do it with the resources available to us at the moment. You are putting too much responsibility on our shoulders'. That has meant that in the three years we have been in government we have had to increase the Australian Federal Police manpower substantially. It takes a lot of money. We took a different view from the Opposition in regard to the establishment of the National Crime Authority. It wanted to establish the Authority one out without the States being involved at all. It was not the view of this Government, after discussion with a lot of people from the legal fraternity together with representatives of the States, that that was the best way of fighting crime. I can assure every honourable member opposite who has taken an interest in this subject that when they come back into power, whenever that may be, they will not dismantle the structure we have put in place; that is, a structure in which we co-operate with the States to fight this cancer. We need the States to do that effectively and we need trust between the law enforcement agencies, which I might say has been built up quite substantially in the last three years as a result of having the National Crime Authority and its intergovernmental committee comprising representatives of all the States as well as the Commonwealth. It is apparent that this is not a cheap exercise when one is sitting around the Budget table talking about Government priorities and people are saying that they need financial resources to do all sorts of things. I have to battle in there the same as everybody else, and I must say there have been absolutely no cuts in the law enforcement area since we came to government. In fact, there have been increases every year. We required twice the budget for the establishment and operation of the National Crime Authority that we had for the combined operation of the Costigan and Stewart royal commissions back in 1983. We have just agreed to a staff level of 254 for the Authority, giving it an operating cost this year of about $12m. That is the cost just to operate the National Crime Authority. We have to take on board the co-operation we are getting from the States in that they are asking us to accept references. They will also contribute to the resources required to chase up the matters they are passing over to the Authority. As a result of the National Crime Authority winning the trust of the States, the States are now quite happy to pass over what they consider to be the major investigations which they cannot deal with using their normal police methods. Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! It being 3.45 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Young-I require the question to be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(3.45) —We have been able, with the co-operation of the States, to make great inroads into some of these activities. As I say, we do not do these things merely by changing one or two laws. We had to give the Australian Federal Police the resources it required. I do not stand here and tell honourable members that the Australian Federal Police has all it requires. It now has 2,700 personnel, compared with about 2,200 three years ago. I suppose in three years time someone will stand here and say it has 3,300 or 3,400 personnel, because it requires that personnel to carry out the tasks we have given it. We have changed its priorities substantially because when we came to power in March 1983 the number one priority for the Australian Federal Police was community policing in Canberra. We have not downgraded the importance of community policing in Canberra but it is hardly the number one priority as far as the Australian people are concerned. They see drug-related crime and organised crime as the major priorities, and that is what we bore in mind last year in resetting the priorities for the Australian Federal Police. It is not just a question of manpower. In addition, when we came to office the Federal Police in many areas of Australia, including here in Canberra and especially in Melbourne, were operating out of buildings that we would not have used for public toilets. The facilities were absolutely mediaeval. We have also had to start the ball rolling on putting the Australian Federal Police, of which we and the Australian people expect so much, into decent buildings with the proper up to date, state of the art equipment to carry out its tasks. It is not dealing with and chasing a bunch of mugs like Squizzy Taylor or someone in the 1920s; it is dealing with a bunch of sophisticated people who have access to the best possible legal and accounting advice that Australia has to offer in the carrying out of their activities. If they cannot get the advice in Australia, they can buy it overseas. We are dealing with persons involved in criminal activities who have no recognition of State borders or national borders and who float in and out of this country. We have had the example of Trimbole in this country. He got out of Australia, before we came to power, on a false passport. He was able to manipulate that and get out of the country. We know of the problem with the extradition treaties. The fact is that since we have been in power we have signed more extradition treaties with other countries than had been signed in the previous 15 years. Mr Hodgman —But you don't bring anybody back. Mr YOUNG —We will see whether we will bring anybody back. (Quorum formed) I take the criticisms of the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) on board as part of a debating point. I do not think there is any valid criticism in terms of the role we have played for the past three years in carrying out the responsibility of the Government in fighting criminal activities. The other important feature of what this Government has done, which is of ever increasing importance in this area, is building the intelligence bank of the law enforcement agencies of this country, both through the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence and through the placement of liaison officers around the world which is assisting us in the bringing to an end of some of the activities that have been going on around Australia. If one examines the role of this Government over the past three years people would have to applaud the job we have done after seven years of Fraserism which brought to Australia so little. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The time allowed for the debate has concluded. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.52) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. When the Government embarked on its critical task of reforming the Australian taxation system, it first set out the major objectives for worthwhile and enduring reform and then painstakingly developed a detailed program for achieving those results. One goal that emerged clearly was the need to improve the fairness of the system for the majority of Australians by pursuing with resolve our policy of rooting out tax avoidance and evasion practices that had been found to exist on a large scale. These practices had seriously eroded public confidence in the integrity of the tax system and had caused a disproportionate shouldering of the revenue burden by honest citizens. An associated goal was to lighten substantially the weight of high marginal tax rates which were operating to undermine the income tax base. Those related aims-indeed, the whole thrust of the tax reform package-was about improving equity and not about increasing Government revenues. This historical Bill introduces another major element of the tax reform package, a system for effectively taxing remuneration obtained as fringe benefits, the absence of which has allowed many thousands of Australians to escape their fair share of tax while adding their burden to the backs of their fellow taxpayers. This Bill deals with income taken as fringe benefits, the most rutted-in tax shelter and the most untouchable income of all. No previous government has had the courage to confront it. Entertainment, motor cars, free travel, subsidised housing et cetera have lifted the living standards of many Australians at the expense of everyone else. This Government has said that this unfairness must end. This historic Bill ends it. There has always been lots of loose talk and rhetoric about the need for fairness and equity in the tax system. This Government's tax reform statement ends the deception. It ends the sham of public noise and policy inaction. This Bill is an integral part of this unique chastening and reinvigorating process which will be the rehabilitation of the Australian taxation system. I thank all those people who supported these measures and withstood the pressures for their amelioration. I thank my colleagues in the Cabinet and in the Caucus-- Mr Hodgman —That is an attack on one of your colleagues, the Special Minister of State. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison will cease interjecting. Mr KEATING —Mr Deputy Speaker, the honourable member for Denison is intent upon wrecking the second reading of this important Bill. I certainly ask that you make him cease. Mr Hodgman —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I ask for that last remark to be withdrawn. The Treasurer mumbles and does not think we hear it, but we have ears like a porcupine. I ask for the remark to be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Chair did not hear what the Treasurer said. However, the honourable member has found the remark offensive. Will the Treasurer withdraw? Mr KEATING —No; I said nothing offensive. I am not withdrawing. I thank all those people who supported these measures and withstood the pressure-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has asked that the remark be withdrawn. Mr KEATING —Mr Deputy Speaker, I am reading a second reading speech. There have been constant interjections by the honourable member for Denison. His correction in the House is your function, Mr Deputy Speaker. You should not ask me to withdraw something which reflects upon his activity. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Treasurer will understand that the honourable member has brought a matter to my attention. I did not hear what the Treasurer said. Mr KEATING —In that case, I have nothing to withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Treasurer may tell me what he said and I will determine whether it was offensive. Mr KEATING —If you find it offensive, Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I did not hear what you said, so you might tell me what you said. Mr KEATING —If you find it offensive, I will withdraw it; but I can assure you that I said nothing offensive. I am referring only to the intervention and interjection from the Opposition. Opposition members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Honourable members on my left will hear the Treasurer in silence. These Bills are very important. They relate to changes in the taxation system of Australia. If members of the Opposition are not interested in hearing them, no doubt people who are out in the electorates are interested. The Treasurer will be heard in silence. Mr Hodgman —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. My point of order is that you have previously directed me and other members to withdraw unconditionally. This Treasurer is defying you. He did not withdraw unconditionally, and I require him so to do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Treasurer withdrew. He said that if the remark was found offensive he would withdraw. That is unconditional. Mr Hodgman —He said that if it were found offensive to you he would withdraw it. Mr Deputy Speaker, you suspended one of our colleagues 24 hours ago on this point. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Hodgman —I ask that he withdraw unconditionally. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Treasurer will continue. Mr KEATING —I repeat: I thank all the people who supported these measures and withstood the pressures for their amelioration. I thank my colleagues in the Cabinet and the Caucus, Mr Gregory Smith, on my personal staff, and the members of the Federal Department of Treasury and the Australian Taxation Office who have worked ceaselessly for 18 months to make the taxation system more unambiguously decent. By and large the measures that the Bill contains follow closely the proposals for dealing with fringe benefits that were contained in the 19 September 1985 statement. In outlining those measures now I observe that the Government has readily entered into consultation with employer representatives, trade unions and other interested groups. It has been ready to listen and respond to reasoned argument as to whether particular aspects of its proposals should be modified. The willingness of the Government to entertain responsible dialogue in this area has been a feature of its approach. But our principal goals have been kept unswervingly in sight. Major reform necessarily means that relative shares of the tax burden will shift and other adjustments will occur as a consequence. The process cannot be painless for all. It must be expected that some will disagree with the measures affecting them. We cannot allow that small measure of disagreement to defeat our objective of providing a fairer and better deal for Australian taxpayers. Before turning to the main features of the fringe benefits tax, I remind honourable members of the background. There has over the years been a very strong movement towards the remuneration of employees-especially higher income earners-by fringe benefits packages which allowed income tax to be avoided on substantial parts of the overall remuneration. So-called tax-free perks came to dominate salary package negotiations and packages were openly advertised in the market place. Increasingly innovative deals were emerging particularly after the demise of the paper tax avoidance schemes in the early 1980s. All of this was aggravated by the inability of the existing income tax system to exact tax effectively from recipients of fringe benefits. Several factors contributed to this. Mr Cadman —You bungled it from the beginning. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for Mitchell will cease interjecting. Mr KEATING —The ratbag prattlings from the irrelevant people on the Opposition benches. Mr Tuckey —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I object to the word `ratbag' and ask the Treasurer to withdraw it. Mr KEATING —No doubt you do. Of course I withdraw it. Mr Tuckey —I will give you a bit more if you want to start. Why don't you withdraw? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! If the honourable member for O'Connor had been listening, he would have heard the Treasurer withdraw. Mr KEATING —First there were deficiencies in the income tax law itself. A major one was that it called for case by case subjective judgments to be made as to the value of fringe benefits in the hands of individual employees. That kind of requirement is simply incompatible with the efficient assessment and collection of tax on a mass scale and invites disputation. There were also technical defects creating gaps in coverage, for example, when benefits were given to family members and associates rather than to employees directly. A decided lack of enthusiasm to tackle such problems over the years by previous governments inhibited administrative initiatives in this area, encouraged the growth of fringe benefits and heightened perceptions that there was a right to enjoy perks tax-free once they were negotiated. This was a situation that the Government could not leave unchallenged if tax reform was to have any meaning. Plan of the Tax Fringe benefits tax will be imposed on employers on the taxable value of fringe benefits that they provide to their employees. There is no practical alternative to that course. It will commence to apply from 1 July 1986 and the tax will be payable in quarterly instalments, the first of which will be due by 28 October 1986 in relation to fringe benefits provided in the quarter to 30 September 1986. The system will be one of self-assessment which means that a responsibility will be placed on employers to lodge an annual return and, when doing so, to calculate the amount of fringe benefits tax payable. To avoid imposing a further concentration on the work loads of employers, tax agents and the tax administration in peak processing periods, the standard tax year for fringe benefits tax purposes will be the year from 1 April to 31 March rather than the financial year. As the tax is to commence on 1 July 1986, transitional provisions will enable the first year of tax to apply for the nine months period to 31 March 1987, with the second year of tax being from 1 April 1987 to 31 March 1988. For the transitional `year', tax will be imposed at the rate of 46 cents in the dollar on the taxable value of fringe benefits subject to the tax. Thereafter the rate will be 49 cents which equates with both the maximum marginal rate of income tax proposed to apply from 1 July 1987 and the company tax rate to apply to corporate incomes derived in 1987-88. Once the tax is fully operational, after the initial transitional period, three quarterly instalments of tax will be payable in each year for the quarters ending 30 June, 30 September and 31 December with payments falling due on the twenty-eighth day of the succeeding month in each case. The quarterly instalments will normally be based on the tax payable for the previous year. Employers will, however, be permitted to estimate their annual liability for the purpose of varying their quarterly instalments where the level of benefits changes from year to year, in much the way that provisional tax may be varied under the income tax law. For the transitional nine-month assessment period two quarterly instalments will be payable, for the quarters ending 30 September and 31 December 1986. As there will be no previous year liability on which those instalments could be based, each will be calculated and paid by reference to the actual levels of benefits provided to employees in the respective quarter periods. The Bill contains legislative directions as to how this is to be done. Taxable Fringe Benefits As the purpose of the tax is to remove a serious gap in the income tax law and ensure that all forms of remuneration paid to employees bear a fair measure of tax, fringe benefits tax is pitched at all employers-both taxable employers and exempt employers under the income tax law. It will apply to Commonwealth, State and local governments and their agencies. An exception-but a tightly drawn one-will apply in the case of members of religious bodies. Consistent with this approach, the tax will have a wide sweep as to the kinds of fringe benefits it will cover. As stated in the 19 September 1985 announcement, the types of benefits to be taxed include employer-provided motor vehicles, free or low-interest loans, residential accommodation, board and excessive living-away-from-home allowances, goods and services sold at or below cost, or provided free, and expenses paid on behalf of employees. In fact, unless specifically exempted, any form of employee fringe benefit will come within the new rules. Honourable members will recall some exclusions that have been announced previously. Fringe benefits tax will not apply to benefits associated with contributions to superannuationfunds and employee share acquisition plans. The income tax law already deals with these. Generally excluded also are staff canteens and free or discounted use of commuter transport systems by their employees. There will be no tax on the use of child care facilities and recreational facilities on an employer's premises. As a practical matter, there will be no tax on goods consumed at work nor on the first $200 in value in a year of free or discounted goods or services provided to an employee, including discounted air fares to airline and travel agency employees. Some further exemptions not announced earlier are to be given. I draw attention to them now: Low interest loans granted to veterans under the Defence Service Homes Act; consistent with our international obligations, benefits provided to employees by organisations that are immune from income tax by virtue of the International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, the Consular Privileges and Immunities Act or the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act, or under international agreements; and live-in accommodation of employees who care for disabled people or disadvantaged children or other persons in a house, unit or hostel operated by a government body, religious body or other non-profit organisation. The exemption referred to earlier that is proposed for religious institutions will apply only to benefits that are given to clergy and other members of a religious order. To ensure equity between employees in like occupations, benefits will be taxable if they are given mainly in respect of secular or commercial activities and not religious duties. Valuation of Benefits The taxable values of the various fringe benefit categories will be determined under rules set out in the Bill. For the most part the valuation rules follow closely details contained in the announcement of 19 September 1985. There are some respects in which the initial proposals are to be adjusted or extended following consideration of representations. Motor Vehicles For employer-provided cars made available for personal use of employees, two alternative methods of valuation were specified. One values the benefit as the actual private use proportion of the costs of operating the vehicles and requires detailed record-keeping. The second is an arbitrary formula which may be chosen by those preferring not to document fully their business and private travel. Under this method the taxable value is a specified percentage of the original purchase price of the vehicle to the employer or, for a leased vehicle, the market value when the lease commences. Under each of these methods the cost price or market value will be adjusted upwards to reflect any sales tax or customs duty exemptions that applied when the car was acquired by the employer. This adjustment will place on an equal footing for fringe benefits tax cars provided by all classes of employers, including governments, whether or not they receive concessional treatment for other purposes. For car benefits valued under the arbitrary formula the cost price or market value base for calculating the taxable value will be discounted by one-third if the car is held for more than four years. This recognises that the right to use older vehicles is somewhat less valuable than the use of a newer one. Before moving away from motor vehicles, I refer to concerns expressed to the Government about the impact of fringe benefits tax on the motor vehicle industry. We have listened carefully to those representations and we have tested and analysed the material offered in support of them. It is the Government's considered view that the new tax rules are quite fair-indeed the arbitrary formula is somewhat generous-and will not produce distortions in the car market. That is not to say that the costs of fringe benefits tax will have no impact on car sales. We judge, however, that loss of unit sales due to the tax will fall within tolerable limits for the industry and certainly will not impact in a discriminatory manner. We cannot let short term adjustment considerations stand in the way of essential and lasting closure of a notorious tax loophole. The industry need not rely on unfair tax advantages in the context of the stronger economy, improved competitiveness and the further advantages provided by the car plan which have derived from the policies of the Government. Remote Areas It was previously announced that the taxable value of free or subsidised rental accommodation would be discounted by one-third if the housing qualified for the existing remote area housing concession available under the income tax law. We have decided to increase the discount to 40 per cent. This concession is in recognition of the cost disadvantages of constructing accommodation in such areas. It has also been decided to make available a statutory formula for valuing remote area housing benefits as an alternative to basing it on 60 per cent of the market value. Under the alternative, an employer will be able to elect to have the taxable value of employee housing taken as a specified proportion of average adult male full time earnings in the mining industry. That proportion will be the dwelling rent component of private consumption expenditure as published in the Australian national accounts by the Australian Statistician. This arbitrary method will obviate the need to determine market values in remote areas where the local housing market can be subject to abnormal supply and demand factors. Where an employer adopts this method it will apply to all remote area housing provided to employees of that firm. The Bill makes further allowances for the situation of remotely located employment. One of these is to discount by half the value of holiday travel subsidised or paid for by employers where, under an employment agreement or award, the employees are entitled to be assisted with travel to the location where they were engaged or to the nearest capital city. For all these purposes the tests of remoteness under the income tax law are to be modified. A location will be remote if it is more than 40 kilometres from a population centre of 14,000 or more and beyond 100 kilometres of a population centre of 130,000 or more, the populations being as established by the 1981 census. The figure of 14,000 is an increase on the 12,000 figure under the income tax concession and ensures that there is no detriment to employers in areas that have increased in population since the previous census. In addition, if a location is in zone A or zone B it will be treated as remote for fringe benefits tax if it is more than 40 kilometres from a population centre of 28,000 rather than 14,000. Again this recognises the costs of providing reasonable working conditions, including recreation assistance, in less congenial areas. Airline Transport Employees of airlines and travel agencies may fly on private travel at greatly reduced fares under arrangements applying within the travel industry. Under these, the travel rights of the employees are available on a stand-by basis only after seating is allocated to members of the public, including those travelling on commercial stand-by fares. In valuing the resulting fringe benefit, due allowance is to be made for the restrictions attaching to this kind of travel right. Where the travel is on a scheduled service of a domestic carrier a discount of 50 per cent will be applied to the standard economy fare. For stand-by travel on an international route this discount will generally be applied to the lowest fare for the route published in Australia for individual bookings during the tax year. In each case the generally applicable concession for staff discounting of goods and services will also be extended. That is, the taxable value will be reduced to 75 per cent of the benefit. Tax will be payable by the employer whether or not the employer is the actual carrier. I could take up the time of the House in discussing other aspects of this Bill but do not propose to do so. The main features of the new tax have been spelled out and a detailed explanatory memorandum is being made available. This is an assessment Bill for a new tax and therefore contains all the usual machinery provisions of a tax law for such things as collection and recovery procedures, appeal rights and the necessary administrative arrangements. Its design features are directed at making the operation of the tax as readily manageable as possible for employers. The Bill also contains all the rules necessary to identify and value the wide range of fringe benefits it deals with. All of this means that this is a very substantial Bill both in content and importance. It represents another major step towards completing our tax reform program. It is indeed as I described an historic Bill. The revenue gain from the imposition of fringe benefits tax is estimated at $330m in 1986-87, $540m in 1987-88 and $625m in 1988-89. I have pleasure in commending the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(4.16) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The assessment Bill which I have just introduced will establish the legislative framework for identifying and determining the taxable values of the various kinds of fringe benefits that are to attract tax in the hands of employers who provide fringe benefits to their employees. This Bill-the Fringe Benefits Tax Bill 1986-will formally impose that tax and declare the tax rate. Fringe benefits tax is to commence to operate from 1 July 1986 and as a transitional measure, as has been explained earlier, the first year of tax for assessment purposes will be the nine month period from 1 July 1986 to 31 March 1987. From then on, the standard fringe benefits tax year will be the 12 months ending on 31 March each year. By this Bill, the rate of tax in the transitional year is set at 46 per cent. That is, tax at that rate will be imposed on the total taxable values of fringe benefits provided in the period 1 July 1986 to 31 March 1987. For each subsequent taxable year from 1 April to 31 March the tax rate is to be 49 per cent. Fringe benefits tax, as has been made clear, is to be payable by all employers including employers such as Commonwealth, State, Territory and local governments and their respective agencies which are not generally subject to taxes. This wide-reaching application is because fringe benefits tax aims to ensure that all forms of employee remuneration bear a reasonable share of tax. This cannot be achieved unless the tax has universal coverage. There have been suggestions from some quarters that to tax State governments in this way might breach the constitutional requirements that Federal taxes not be imposed on the property of a State. The assessment Bill has been carefully prepared so as to ensure that no such conclusion is open. The Government considers that nothing in that Bill could be fairly represented as a tax on State property. What is being taxed is the value of benefits that are given to employees as an effective part of the employees' remuneration. Nonetheless, lest there be the slightest doubt in the matter, the Fringe Benefits Tax Bill ensures that no adverse finding could affect the validity of the Bill to tax other employers. I commend the Bill to the House. I now present to the House the explanatory memorandum covering the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Bill 1986, the Fringe Benefits Tax Bill 1986, the Fringe Benefits Tax (Application to the Commonwealth) Bill 1986 and the Fringe Benefits Tax (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1986. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(4.20) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I made clear when announcing the fringe benefits tax proposals on 19 September last that the measures to be taken would equate the treatment of fringe benefits for Commonwealth public servants with that to apply in the private sector. That approach is to apply in relation to all employees and office holders under the Commonwealth umbrella including, for example, occupation within the Parliament and the judiciary. This Bill will specify how this is to be done. Broadly, departments and authorities of the Commonwealth will be subject to fringe benefits tax as if they were separate corporate employers. As such, the various departments and authorities will face the same obligations as other employers to lodge annual fringe benefits tax returns and to pay the tax, including quarterly instalments. The Government will be at pains to ensure that agencies fully bear the burden of the tax through the annual appropriation procedures and other measures. Consistent with this, the Bill authorises the Minister for Finance to give formal and binding directions in relation to the transfer of money within the public account. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(4.23) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Bill which I introduced a little earlier contains a comprehensive code for the taxing of employers on the value of fringe benefits that they provide to their employees. Where fringe benefits are taxed in that way, or where they are to be specifically exempted from fringe benefits tax under the earlier Bill, it is to be made clear that they are not to be treated as assessable income in the hands of employees for income tax purposes. The Fringe Benefits Tax (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill will amend the Income Tax Assessment Act to ensure this. It will also amend that Act to repeal measures for the concessional valuation of residential accommodation supplied to employees in remote localities which are now to be dealt with under fringe benefits tax legislation. Another amendment sees to it that income tax deductions are not available to employers for amounts paid as fringe benefits tax. Without that measure the fringe benefits tax rate would be effectively reduced for income tax paying employers. Several other consequential changes to the income tax law arise due to fringe benefits tax rules relating to board, living-away-from-home allowances and reimbursements of employees' car expenses. These are detailed in the explanatory memorandum. Finally, the scope of the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act 1980 is to be extended so that it will apply to any schemes for the fraudulent evasion of fringe benefits tax as it does to other taxes of the Commonwealth. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests: Barley Research Levy Amendment Bill 1986 Dried Fruits Levy Amendment Bill 1986 Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill 1986 Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill 1986 Meat Chicken Levy Amendment Bill 1986 Pig Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill 1986 Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Amendment Bill 1986 Ministers of State Amendment Bill 1986 Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment. Ordered that the amendment be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting. Motion (by Mr Holding) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(4.25) —If ever we have witnessed an example of double standards and hypocrisy, we witnessed it in this House this afternoon. Firstly, we now have it clearly established that there are two rules in relation to the conduct of the House. If one happens to be a member of this side of the House, one is dealt with in one way; if one happens to be the Treasurer of Australia, one is dealt with in a totally different way. This is the sort of thing which is making the House totally unworkable. Mr Holding —On a point of order: The statements being made by the honourable member for Denison constitute a gross reflection on the Chair and the conduct of the House by the Chair. If the honourable member for Denison wants to move that way, there are substantive proceedings available to him. Madam SPEAKER —Yes, I do say to the honourable member for Denison that, if he wishes to reflect upon the Chair, he should do so under a substantive motion. Mr HODGMAN —Thank you, Madam Speaker. I indicate that that will certainly occupy my consideration over the weekend. If I may, I ask you, Madam Speaker, to be kind enough to look at the Hansard record in relation to the incident which involved the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) and the incident about 20 minutes ago involving the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and myself. Having said that, I make the point, and take it no further, that it should be dealt with by a substantive motion, and I will consider that very carefully. Mr Holding —On a point of order: The honourable member for Denison is endeavouring to overcome the ruling that you, Madam Speaker, have upheld. Clearly, if the honourable member is concerned about the conduct of the House- Mr Cadman —A frivolous point of order. Mr Holding —The honourable member for Mitchell is an expert on frivolous points of order. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs will resume his seat. There is no point of order. The honourable member for Denison will not refer to the matter again. Mr HODGMAN —Thank you, Madam Speaker. I accept your ruling, of course. I want to speak about some of the matters raised a few moments ago. If ever a government has thrived off fringe benefits, it is the New South Wales Wran Labor Government. During a significant period of time that the Wran Government has been in action, the Treasurer of Australia, the Hon. Paul Keating, has been one of its strongest supporters. I want to know whether these rules in relation to fringe benefits-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member for Denison whether he is anticipating debate on the Bills that have just been introduced into the House. Mr HODGMAN —No, Madam Speaker. I am just going to ask a few questions which I hope the Treasurer will look at over the next few- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member knows full well that the matter is before the House and will come up for debate, and he will not anticipate debate. Mr HODGMAN —No, Madam Speaker. There seem to be some matters which do not directly relate to the debate but which have attracted my attention. For example, at the moment, on the information before us, we do know something about entertainment, we do know something about travel, and we do know something about accommodation. However, I do not know, for example, whether that would include accommodation at sea. I do not know, for example-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I suggest to the honourable member for Denison that that will come out in debate and, I would presume, in Committee procedures, whereupon the honourable member will be able to ascertain from the Treasurer any of these things that he is not quite sure about at the moment. The Bills will come up for debate and I imagine that there will be amendments in Committee and the matter will be open, I am sure, for the House to debate fully when the time comes. Mr HODGMAN —I will change to another subject in view of your ruling, Madam Speaker. I ask the Treasurer, in relation to the manner in which the taxation laws of this country are being administered generally, to indicate what procedures he has in mind for checking the ownership, for example, of luxury cruisers and vessels which have been used in recent times for the purpose of providing gratuitous accommodation by way of luxury Great Barrier Reef cruises to persons of significant standing within the Australian community. Mr Cunningham —On a point of order: It is obvious that the honourable member for Denison is anticipating debate on a matter before the House and I ask you, Madam Speaker, to rule him out of order. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Denison will be anticipating debate if he goes into the content of the four Bills just presented by the Treasurer. Mr HODGMAN —I can put my dairy farmer friend at rest by saying I am not talking about anything in relation to those Bills. I am just about to raise the matter of how difficult it is sometimes to find out who owns what in Australia. That has nothing to do with the Bills, it is just a general thing. There is a MV Ilona which, from photographs, seems to be not much smaller than a Fremantle class patrol boat. It has been very difficult to find out who actually owns the MV Ilona, although it has been sighted and in fact was under police surveillance, because of at least one of the persons on board, in the region of the Barrier Reef last year. If we cannot find out who actually owns things in Australia, I would say that as a matter of law it will be very hard to enforce many of our laws and in particular our income tax laws. I do not anticipate the debate, but I ask the Treasurer whether he has had a look at the question of having some sort of register so that we can find out, for example, whether the MV Ilona was owned by the Westfield Property Trust. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 4.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, 5 May 1986, at 2 p.m. House adjourned at 4.30 p.m. Mr Downer asked Madam Speaker, upon notice, on 8 April 1986: (1) Why have air-conditioning and exhaust units been installed in offices in the House of Representatives 1965 wing. (2) What was the cost per unit. (3) What was the cost of installation and any other work required on the units. (4) Was the work put out to tender, if so, which companies tendered. (5) Which company was the successful tenderer. (6) What was the bid of the successful tenderer. (7) When was the work (a) started and (b) completed. (8) Did the work overrun the quoted time schedule; if so, (a) why and (b) what was the additional cost. Madam Speaker-The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) In early September 1985 it was discovered that modifications made in 1972 to the air-conditioning system servicing the ground and first floors of the 1965 wing had created a potentially dangerous situation. In effect, these modifications created an air plenum in the ceiling voids of these areas. Steel structural beams in the voids are coated with a fire retardant containing asbestos fibre. The increased air movement caused by the modifications had the potential to dislodge asbestos fibre from the beams which may have been introduced, with the conditioned air, to the rooms below. Immediately the situation was known air testing was carried out in all of the affected areas. The test results were negative, however there was no guarantee that this would always be the case. Acting on the advice of the Department of Housing and Construction and the Asbestos Advisory Council, the Presiding Officers had agreed to prohibit access to the ceiling voids in the 1965 wing to avoid the possibility of asbestos contamination. This agreement precluded any modifications to the existing system. Accordingly, advice was sought from the Department of Housing and Construction on the most expedient and cost effective means of addressing the situation. Their advice, acted upon by my predecessor, was to install individual reverse cycle air-conditioning units in each room and to subsequently seal off the ceiling voids in affected areas. (2) $1415.80. (3) Installation $29,827; Upgrading electrical services $14,253; Miscellaneous $374. (4) Yes. Delta Airconditioning and Heating; Climatrol Pty Ltd; The Airconditioning Centre Pty Ltd; Conditioned Air Pty Ltd. (5) Delta Airconditioning and Heating; Anytime Electrical Services. A variation was made to the Delta Airconditioning and Heating contract to enable Anytime Electrical Services to be contracted for the electrical work. This variation achieved savings of approximately $14,000 on the electrical component of the installation charge. A Certificate of Exemption from normal tendering arrangements was issued by the competent authority to cover this work. (6) $65,222. (7) (a) 8 January 1986; (b) 21 March 1986. (8) Yes. (a) adverse weather conditions, unavailability of certain mechanical components, site availability. (b) No additional costs were incurred. One additional unit, not provided for in the original program, has since been installed. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 3093) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) What funds were allocated to the Federal Water Resources Assistance Program in (i) 1982-83, (ii) 1983-84, (iii) 1984-85 and (iv) 1985-86. (2) What (a) amount and (b) proportion of funds were specifically allocated in each year for projects to be undertaken in New South Wales. (3) How and by which body were the funds administered in each year for the program. (4) How and by which body were decisions made in each year on the detailed allocation of funds for projects under the program. (5) What specific projects were funded under the program in each year in the electoral division of Richmond. (6) For each project in the electoral division of Richmond (a) what was the principal purpose of the grant, (b) which individual or group received the grant, (c) what was the amount of the grant and (d) what evaluation has been made to determine if the grant achieved the original objectives for which it was made. (7) What specific projects were denied funding under the program in each year in the electoral division of Richmond. (8) For each project denied funding in the electoral division of Richmond (a) what was the principal purpose of the grant sought, (b) which individual or group applied for the grant, (c) what was the amount of grant sought and (d) what was the reason for refusing funding for the application. (9) How does funding for projects under the program in each year in the electoral division of Richmond compare on a per capita basis with funding for projects under the program in the electoral divisions of (a) Wills, (b) Reid, (c) Parramatta, (d) Robertson, (e) Shortland, (f) Cunningham, (g) Werriwa and (h) Blaxland. (10) How and when were applications sought for grants under the program in each year. (11) Was any specific advertising undertaken to alert residents of the electoral division of Richmond to the existence of the program. (12) Will he ensure that in future comprehensive information concerning grant availability and eligibility under the program is drawn to the attention of the local government bodies, community groups and residents in the electoral division of Richmond; if not, why not. (13) If so (a) how and (b) when, will the information be provided. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Funds allocated to the National Water Resources Program (NWRP) in 1982-83 and 1983-84 were $41.7m and $46m respectively. Funds allocated to the Federal Water Resources Assistance Program (FWRAP), which superceded NWRP, in 1984-85 and 1985-86 were $64.3m and $67.3m respectively. In addition to NWRP allocations in 1982-83 and 1983-84, the Commonwealth allocated $6.5m and $13m to the Burdekin Falls Dam respectively. FWRAP encompasses assistance for the Burdekin Falls Dam. (2)- Allocation Proportion of total allocation $m % 1982-83... 7.028 16.8 1983-84... 6.750 14.7 1984-85... 8.150 12.7 1985-86... 10.950 16.3 (3) The Department of National Development and Energy and the Department of Resources and Energy were responsible for the administration of NWRP and FWRAP respectively. Commonwealth assistance to New South Wales was administered in that State by the Water Resources Commission and the Public Works Department. (4) Commonwealth assistance to New South Wales is allocated to projects on the basis of submissions by the New South Wales Government and is in accordance with State priorities. The State was responsible for collating and ranking proposals for Commonwealth assistance. Local government authorities and State Government Departments and Authorities submit proposals to the State Government for consideration for inclusion in the State's submission to the Commonwealth. (5)- Project 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 $ $ $ $ Floodplain Management Studies and Investigations Chinderah... 5,275 49,000 18,200 . . Murwillumbah... 1,500 16,000 12,000 13,000 Belongil... . . 12,500 2,000 . . Brunswick River... 12,500 31,000 . . . . West Ballina... 1,250 31,200 11,600 (i) Flood Mitigation Works and Measures Goonellabah... 58,577 56,600 54,359 52,000 Lismore... 21,600 30,400 33,929 20,000 South Tweed Heads... . . . . 1,600 3,000 Murwillumbah... . . . . . . 20,000 Total... 100,702 226,700 133,688 108,000 (i) Since the November 1984 electoral redistribution, West Ballina is no longer in the Electoral Division of Richmond. (6) (a)- Chinderah: flood delineation and development of management options Murwillumbah: investigation and design of Murwillumbah flood bypass and protection Belongil Creek: floodplain management study Brunswick River: floodplain management study West Ballina: floodway delineation and development of management strategy Goonellabah: service of loan on land acquired for an alternative commercial centre Lismore: acquisition of property in floodway South Tweed Heads: levee construction Murwillumbah: acquisition of property in floodway (b) Assistance under FWRAP is provided pursuant to the National Water Resources (Financial Assistance) Act 1978 and accordingly funds are payable to States or approved bodies, not to individuals or groups. The Commonwealth funds for floodplain management studies and investigations in the Electoral Division of Richmond were paid to the State Government to meet half the cost of the approved studies and investigations. Funds for flood mitigation works and measures were provided to the State Government for on-passing to the relevant local government authority which is responsible for the implementation of works and measures. (c) See (5) above. (d) State expenditure of funds provided by the Commonwealth under the program is subject to examination by the State Auditor-General. Audited statements of expenditure are provided by the State to the Minister for Finance to enable the Commonwealth to ensure that funds are used for the approved purpose. Copies of the final reports of floodplain management studies and investigations and regular progress reports on project implementation are forwarded to the Commonwealth. The New South Wales Government is responsible for the provision of technical evaluation and advice to local authorities on projects and for post project technical evaluation of works and measures. (7) to (8) The NSW Government is responsible for the collation and ranking of proposals for Commonwealth assistance under FWRAP and Commonwealth assistance is provided in accordance with State submissions and priorities. The Commonwealth is not aware of what proposals, if any, in the Electoral Division of Richmond were not submitted by the State for Commonwealth consideration. As has been the practice of previous Governments, I am not prepared to authorise the use of the considerable resources of time and money that would be involved in providing the detailed information sought. (9) As has been the practice of previous Governments, I am not prepared to authorise the use of considerable resources of time and money that would be involved in providing the detailed information sought. (10) to (13) See (4) above. (Question No. 3135) Mr Scott asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 11 February 1986: (1) Is he able to say whether any research and development projects are being undertaken in (a) Australia or (b) overseas research institutions in the field of uranium enrichment by laser technology; if so, what are the details. (2) Is there any evidence to indicate that such a process would result in previously uneconomic uranium deposits becoming commercially exploitable. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) I am not aware of any research and development projects being undertaken in Australia in the field of uranium enrichment by laser technology. No uranium enrichment research is being undertaken by the Government. In November 1983 the Government announced that it would not facilitate studies then under way into the feasibility of establishing a commercial uranium enrichment industry in Australia. (b) A number of countries are conducting research and development work in this area. Details are available in the United States Congressional Budget Office report `US Uranium Enrichment: Options for a Competitive Program' released in October 1985 following the announcement by the Department of Energy of its decision to concentrate its enrichment research effort on Atomic Vapor Laser Isotope Separation (AVLIS) techniques. This report is available through the Parliamentary Library. (2) It is unclear at this stage from both a technical and economic perspective whether laser technology can be successfully employed in a commercial uranium enrichment plant. Thus it is premature to speculate on any effect such a process may have on presently uneconomic uranium deposits. (Question No. 3276) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 20 February 1986: (1) What are the guidelines for the transfer of clients from supporting parents benefits to widows Class A pensions. (2) How many persons have been transferred from supporting parents benefit to a widows Class A pension in each of the years 1981 to 1985. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) A woman with dependent children granted a supporting parent's benefit may be automatically transferred to Class A widow's pension where it is established that she has been deserted by her husband without just cause for more than 6 months or where her husband has been convicted of an offence and imprisoned for more than 6 months. In other cases, a woman may be transferred to a Class A widow's pension when notification as to a relevant change in circumstances is received, for example once a decree absolute is granted. (2) The numbers of persons transferred from supporting parent's benefit to Class A widow's pension are as follows: 1981-82-7,333 1982-83-7,919 1983-84-7,391 1984-85-7,458 Note: Statistics available are quoted in financial years. Details of transfers to Class A widow's pension are not available for the financial year 1980-81. (Question No. 3434) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 19 March 1986: When will the 1983 Australian Transport Advisory Council report on Australian Railways be released. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Australian Transport Advisory Council (ATAC) has not approved for release to the public the report `Action Plan for National Railway Development' endorsed by Federal and State Transport Ministers at the July 1983 meeting of ATAC. (Question No. 3791) Mr Tim Fischer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 15 April 1986: (1) Is it a fact that on 28 February 1986 there were (a) 11,310 applications for entitlements and (b) 6,080 applications for assessments awaiting the action of the Veterans' Review Board. (2) Has this risen from a total for both categories of 3,500 in recent months; if so, why. (3) What percentage of approval rates has been obtained by the Repatriation Review Tribunal in each State in the period 1 July to 31 September 1985. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. (2) No. At the time of its establishment on 1 January 1985, the Veterans' Review Board (VRB) inherited a backlog of some 11,781 outstanding applications, comprising 8,409 entitlement cases and 3,372 assessment matters. The significant increase in the number of matters outstanding in recent months has been brought about principally by the lodgment of an unexpectedly large number of new applications. Although the VRB has been achieving productivity levels well in excess of those of its predecessor, the Repatriation Review Tribunal, it has been unable to keep pace with this intake. The application rate has shown some signs of easing over the last two months. The VRB has also been exploring various means of further increasing its productivity, e.g. by having some cases decided by members sitting alone rather than by the usual three member panels. (3) As the Repatriation Review Tribunal ceased to exist on 31 December 1984, it is assumed that this question relates to the VRB. Statistics detailing VRB acceptance rates by State are maintained for successive four-week periods rather than calendar months. As a result, figures are not available for the precise period 1 July 1985 to 30 September 1985, but are supplied instead for the period 22 June 1985 to 11 October 1985: State Entitlement Assessment Overall % % % N.S.W.... 70.3 64.7 67.8 Vic.... 81.7 68.6 77.5 Qld... 67.8 71.4 69.1 W.A.... 53.0 65.6 58.3 S.A.... 26.7 63.8 39.8 Tas.... 69.6 66.7 67.8 Aust.... 67.3 66.8 67.1