Friday, 22 August 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Madam SPEAKER —My attention has been drawn to a report in this morning's Canberra Times of remarks attributed to the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair). Since the Leader of the National Party has been suspended from the service of the House until 2.17 p.m. this day, I do not intended to pursue this matter further until the right honourable gentleman has the opportunity to return to the House. Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 16 September 1986, unless Madam Speaker fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction) —by leave-At the conclusion of my statement I will table the Commonwealth's approved capital works program and honourable members will then see that this document replaces the former Budget Paper No. 12 `Civil Works Program'. It provides for the first time, at Budget time, a comprehensive statement of the Commonwealth's proposed expenditure on Budget funded capital works. The document marks a further stage in implementing the Government's decision to improve the published information relating to the Commonwealth's capital works program. The Federal Labor Government recognises the key role of public works in the provision of social and economic infrastructure and the creation of employment; it gives high priority to maintaining expenditure on Commonwealth capital works within the constraints of a tight Budget. Publication of comprehensive information on the Commonwealth's works program is, we consider, essential for the development of the Commonwealth's policies; as a basis for appropriate consultation with other levels of government, industry and the trade union movement; and to enable government and industry to plan effectively their own activities in the current year. The Government proposes expenditure of $1,225.7m on capital works in 1986-87. Expenditure on new works approved in this Budget is estimated at $110.1m. Some $1,115.6m will be spent on works in progress, that is, projects commenced in previous years. Of the proposed expenditure of $1,225.7m, $578.1m, or nearly half, will be allocated to my Department. A sum of $212.1m has been allocated to the civil capital works program and $296.5m to defence capital works. A sum of $69.5m has been allocated to the fitting out of leased premises. Formerly we and former governments have published only civil capital works in Budget Paper No. 12. We are now including defence and fit-out in this much more comprehensive documentation which I am tabling. A further $216.7m over and above the $1,225.7m will be allocated to repairs and maintenance under the control of the Department of Housing and Construction. There will also be substantial expenditure by other authorities. The National Capital Development Commission and the Parliament House Construction Authority have been allocated $254.4m and $274.5m respectively. Works undertaken by or on behalf of a variety of other agencies, such as the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, will account for the remaining $118.6m. The Commonwealth undertakes work to meet its requirements throughout Australia and overseas. Major projects being undertaken in 1986-87 include airport upgrading, office construction and defence facilities in Australia as well as the construction of chanceries in China and Saudi Arabia. The new Brisbane International Airport is Australia's largest ever civil aviation project. The total estimated cost is $382m. The project, which commenced in 1979-80 with extensive dredging and land reclamation works, is scheduled for substantial completion in September 1987. The people of Brisbane will be pleased about that. The estimated expenditure on this project in 1986-87 is $63m. The biggest defence works project is the Tindal Royal Australian Air Force base near Katherine in the Northern Territory. This base will provide accommodation for the new tactical fighter, the FA18s, along with the full range of necessary base support and air defence facilities. I visited that capital works installation last week. Work at the Tindal RAAF base began in 1984-85 and the project is scheduled for completion in 1989-90. The total estimated cost is $210m. Proposed expenditure in 1986-87 is $70m with substantial expenditures still to occur from 1986-87 onwards. Other major civil works projects currently underway include repatriation general hospital projects totalling $50m at Concord in New South Wales, Heidelberg in Victoria, Greenslopes in Queensland, and Daw Park in South Australia. New Commonwealth offices are being constructed in Adelaide and other regional cities. The Adelaide works will cost $46m. We are constructing Commonwealth law courts at Parramatta at a cost of $18m. The largest new projects approved to proceed in 1986-87 are the redevelopment of the School of Military Engineering at Casula in New South Wales, at an estimated cost of $31m, and the provision of training facilities for the Army at Swanbourne, Western Australia, at an estimated cost of $25m. Nearly half the proposed expenditure on capital works in 1986-87 will be undertaken in the Australian Capital Territory. This reflects the Commonwealth's responsibility for functions that would be undertaken normally by State and local government in other parts of Australia, as well as the high level of expenditure on the New Parliament House. Details of individual projects with an unexpended balance of $75,000 or over are shown in the document which I will table. The document shows the estimated cost of each project, and the estimated expenditure in 1986-87. For works in progress, the unexpended balance at 30 June 1986 is also shown. It is a very comprehensive document. Although expenditure on new capital works has had to be restrained to meet the overall need for fiscal restraint, the Commonwealth's Budget-funded capital works program will still be making a substantial contribution to the housing and construction sector in 1986-87. The total estimated expenditure of approximately $1.2 billion on Budget-funded capital works will comprise around 6 per cent of total expenditure on non-residential construction in 1986-87. Public expenditure on construction is a major source of employment. The Department of Housing and Construction has estimated that for every $1m spent on Commonwealth construction, over 20 jobs are generated in the construction sector and supplying industries. The Commonwealth's capital works program will therefore make a significant contribution to employment in the industry at a time when it is going through a period of consolidation. Generally speaking, I turn now to the state of the industry across the public and private sectors. The non-residential building sector is reaching a plateau in activity following three years of quite strong growth. Engineering construction is still weak, though some increase is likely in contract engineering construction for private clients. The non-residential building sector has shown outstanding growth over the past three years. The recovery began in 1983-84, with a 25 per cent increase in public sector building activity. Of course, that triggered a recovery in the private sector. We have maintained buoyant private activity since then. Total non-residential building activity rose by about 10 per cent in 1983-84 and by close to 20 per cent in each of 1984-85 and 1985-86. Non-residential building activity is now at a higher level in real terms than in the boom years of the early 1970s. The main impetus has come from office building which accounts for about one-third of private sector building activity. Major office projects are underway in all capital cities. However, virtually all building types have experienced increased activity over the past two years. The upsurge in building activity has more than offset the continuing decline in the engineering construction sector, following the end of the so-called `resources boom' of the early 1980s. As a result, total expenditure on non-residential construction has shown solid growth over the past two years. This recovery has led to strong growth in employment in the housing and construction industry. Despite the recent setback in the housing sector, which is now on the road to recovery, employment in housing and construction in May this year was at the highest level for three years. Employment in the industry rose by 70,000 to almost 490,000 in the three years to May; the three years of the Labor administration. In 1986-87 non-residential construction activity will be maintained at a high level. The upsurge in non-residential building clearly cannot and will not continue indefinitely. But forward indicators are still quite strong and a large volume of work is still in the pipeline. During 1985-86 the value of non-residential building approvals was at a record level. Office approvals rose by 50 per cent, factory approvals by nearly 40 per cent and shops by 20 per cent. Only hotel approvals were down-by 25 per cent-compared with the previous year. I am pleased to report that private sector engineering construction is now showing some signs of recovery, underpinned by developments such as on the North West Shelf. But a further slight decline in public sector contract engineering construction seems likely in the wake of tight Budgets and restrictions on public sector borrowing. Overall, after very strong growth, the prospect is for a plateauing of activity and employment in non-residential construction in 1986-87. I turn now to the better co-ordination procedures for Commonwealth capital works which the Federal Labor Government is already implementing and of which this document I am about to table is a component. Capital works by their nature do not fit neatly into a budget process based on annual cycles. Many projects take five years or more from design and approval stages through to completion. In addition, capital works are undertaken to meet specific needs. The level of activity, therefore, fluctuates from year to year as priorities change. The Labor Government has been giving increasing attention to the decision-making processes associated with the development of the annual Budget. The current developments relating to Commonwealth capital works are a part of this wider improvement. The primary objective is to bring together relevant information in a timely manner to facilitate the Government's consideration of capital works programs and to provide a vehicle for post-Budget consultation with other levels of government and industry. The document I will table provides, for the first time, a comprehensive statement at Budget time of approved Budget funded capital works, including, as I have said, defence works. This will be followed within a month or so by the publication of another edition of `Approved Commonwealth Capital Works' for public dissemination. I released publicly the first edition in March this year. This further publication will list tender target dates and the expected three-year profile of expenditure on major Budget funded works. It will provide information on approved capital works of off-Budget authorities too, together with an analysis of trends in overall expenditure on Commonwealth capital works. The first edition was warmly welcomed by the construction industry. More timely publication this year following the Budget will enhance the document's worth as a tool for planning and consultation with the private sector. These documents are the public face of a more comprehensive information system that I have developed, in close co-operation with my ministerial colleagues, to provide improved information for Ministers in their deliberations on capital works. This will ensure that the Government has available to it timely information on the implications of proposed capital works for future Budgets and on the demands that they are likely to put on the construction industry. As a further stage in the process, I am examining ways to improve the information and design and/or documentation associated with approval of capital works, involving referral to the Standing Committee on Public Works and return to the House and Cabinet and all that, so that we have a more orderly procedure from initial approval to Public Works Committee hearings, if they are necessary, through to final Cabinet approval. The `Commonwealth's Approved Capital Works Program for 1986-87' underlines the Federal Labor Government's commitment to improve information relating to the Budget process, and especially to its capital works component. I believe that it is a significant step forward in the presentation of information on the Commonwealth's capital works program. I present a copy of my statement, and I present also a copy of the `Commonwealth's Approved Capital Works Program for 1986-87'. I commend both documents to the House. Mr BEALE(Deakin) —by leave-I thank the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) for making a copy of the statement available to me. The Opposition appreciates the high priority of maintaining expenditure on Commonwealth capital works consistent with the constraints of a tight Budget, but it feels that the Budget does not deal adequately with the curtailment of government expenditure. To achieve the current deficit level of $3.5 billion, the Government has boasted that there will be no increase in government expenditure in real terms in the current year. But we ask ourselves: What sort of an achievement is that? In the seven years of the previous coalition Government, growth in government expenditure rose in real terms by just over 2 per cent; yet in the first three years of the current Government, expenditure in real terms rose by around 7 per cent, then 6 per cent and then 3 per cent. Having increased government expenditure so sharply over the past three years, it can hardly be described as a worthwhile achievement to contain government expenditure to zero growth in real terms in the current year. It is ironic that one program that is suffering a cut is the first home ownership scheme. It is ironic because the Minister has continually berated the Opposition for its proposal that funds for the first home owners scheme be consolidated with other funds and grants to the States. We know that $290m was set aside for the scheme for 1985-86, and that this year only $210m has been set aside. The Department of Local Government and Administrative Services seems to have been singled out for some kind of special treatment in the papers that the Minister has tabled. Page 21 of the Minister's portfolio programs shows that the cost of fitting out of leased premises will increase from $56.8m to $69.5m, an increase of $12.7m, or 22 per cent. The Government has valiantly defended its iniquitous fringe benefits tax, which it has imposed on employers. One wonders to what extent we have the substitution for the fringe benefits tax by what appears to be a very significant increase in the facilities that are available to those in the public sector. Spending on repairs and maintenance has increased also from $191m to $216.7m, a 13 per cent increase. That is hardly zero growth. We in the coalition believe that expenditure on repairs and maintenance is significantly better than the Government spending a great deal of its money on capital works. We continue to invite the Government to consider whether new Commonwealth offices, such as those in Adelaide at a cost of $46m or the law courts at Parramatta at a cost of $18m, should not be built by the private sector and then leased to the Government. If the Government is interested in saving expenditure, surely one way to do it is to lease premises rather than build them itself. This commitment to the Government taking control of everything is part of the ideological mindset that the Government has. We urge it to reconsider this approach and to ensure that more of its buildings are constructed by the private sector and leased. We urge the Government also to get rid of its day labour force that looks after repairs and maintenance. There is no reason why the private sector should not carry out the work that is currently being undertaken by the public sector. If the Government will do this, it will save money and administration costs. We urge the Government to give consideration to cutting its expenditure by moving the bulk of the repairs and maintenance work from the public sector to the private sector. There is an interesting item of expenditure on page 115 of the `Commonwealth's Approved Capital Works Program for 1986-87'. This item appears under the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services. I refer to the new Commonwealth offices at Wollongong in New South Wales. The amount set aside last year was $17m for these Commonwealth offices at Wollongong, which I remind the House is in the heart of the Minister's electorate. This year the estimated expenditure is to be zero. One wonders whether the Minister has been spending rather more time with his faction than he has in his electorate. The Minister's comments on the state of the industry appear to overstate the position. As we all know, the housing industry has been disastrous in the past year. It has dropped steadily from a peak and only now does it show some signs of flattening out. The health of the housing industry depends on two factors: First, the supply of money; secondly, the cost of money. Under the Government's previous policies the supply of money was drying up so quickly that it was forced to change its policies, adopt Opposition policies, lift the ceiling on housing interest loans for new loans and thus solve the money supply problem. However, the cost of money, which depends primarily on macroeconomic policies and the level of interest rates, is a matter that this Government has not yet addressed, and certainly does not address in the current Budget. Furthermore, it is clear that the Government and its own Indicative Planning Council are at odds on the number of housing starts that will occur during the 1986-87 year. The Minister acknowledges that engineering construction is still weak and in decline and that the non-residential building sector has plateaued. General comments on the state of the industry can be seen only in the light of the forecasts for growth for the overall economy and in the light of our two most recent quarters of zero growth, and it appears that the Government's assertion of 2 1/2 per cent growth for the whole economy is overstated. Recovery in the housing and construction industry will parallel recovery in the rest of the economy, and interest rates will play a key part in that recovery. These documents are simply part of the Budget Papers, and already other Budget Papers have been shown to be inappropriate. The financial markets have reacted adversely; the business community has reacted adversely; all responsible commentators have reacted adversely; and even the Australian Council of Trade Unions is not wild about the Budget. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), in his speech last night, spelt out quite clearly what is needed for the return of the long term good of the Australian economy. I spell out those six points again. Reforms must be made to reduce government spending, to reduce taxation, to reduce union power, to provide incentive for employees, to encourage overseas investments and to improve our transport and communications systems. Until this Government faces up to Australia's problem this document that the Minister has tabled today will only add to the evidence that we currently have a government that is totally unable to face up to and deal with Australia's current economic difficulties. Mr Steele Hall —Mr Deputy Speaker, I notice that on page 4 of his report to the House, the Minister mentions-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — Order! What is the honourable member attempting to do? Mr Steele Hall —I am seeking leave to make a statement about the report before the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —You have to seek leave before you start. Are you seeking leave to make a statement on this particular matter? Mr Steele Hall —I wish to make a statement on the report just delivered by the Minister to the House. I seek leave to speak-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the honourable member for Boothby seeking leave to make a statement on the statement the Minister just made? Mr Steele Hall —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. Leave not granted. Mr Steele Hall —I find this outrageous, Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr Steele Hall —It is outrageous that the Minister denies the right of members to speak to his report in this House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Boothby will resume his seat. Mr DOWNER(Mayo) —Disappointed as we are that the previous speaker did not get leave- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Is the honourable member for Mayo seeking leave? Mr DOWNER —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts I present the 253rd report of the Committee. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member must seek leave and then we will see whether leave is granted. Mr DOWNER —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to present a report on behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —You may proceed. Mr DOWNER —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 253rd report of the Committee entitled `Proposed computer acquisition by the Australian Audit Office', and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr DOWNER —Report 253 was tabled in the Senate on 12 June. At this point I wish to draw honourable members' attention to a few features of the Committee's inquiry and this report. This report was the first to be tabled by the Committee under the terms of its standing reference to investigate and report on proposed acquisitions of automatic data processing facilities by Commonwealth departments or authorities staffed under the Public Service Act 1922. The Committee received this proposal in January 1986 when Senator Walsh, the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters, advised the Committee that the Government had given in principle approval for the Australian Audit Office to acquire computing and communications facilities, conditional on the proposal being reviewed by the Public Accounts Committee. The Australian Audit Office's computer acquisition proposal involves three levels of data processing. It involves, first, a central computing facility and associated software. The AAO suggests that the central computer be an IBM compatible computer, equivalent to an IBM 4381. Secondly, the proposal involves a network to provide processing capacity, office automation and printing facilities for each State, and to provide access to the central applications. Thirdly, it involves a microcomputer facility to provide further office automation and other tools to audit staff. This proposal is estimated to involve additional expenditure over the period 1986-87 to 1989-90 of $13m, including $6m for capital equipment. The expected benefits of the proposed computer system are in the nature of improved management information, better priority determination for audits and, most importantly, an improvement in the quality of audits. The Australian Audit Office argues that the benefits to the public sector generally in terms of the greater administrative efficiency which would result from the Office's increased productive capacity are real, but immeasurable. The Committee supports the basic motivation of AAO's proposed computer acquisition. If the AAO is to be able to conduct rigorous analyses of the performances of other departments and agencies, it must have modern management and auditing tools at its disposal. The Committee is concerned that the Australian Audit Office currently appears to be poorly equipped, at least in terms of the information technology and related expertise at its disposal, to undertake audits in some of the large and technologically sophisticated departments and agencies of the Commonwealth. However, the Committee concluded that there is some doubt whether the level of additional staff support which is to be provided for this project is sufficient to secure its successful implementation. The Committee also concluded that the Australian Audit Office has not made an adequate effort to define and quantify the benefits resulting from the proposed ADP acquisition and the information systems it will support. The Committee also considers that it is doubtful whether co-ordinating departments and agencies, including the Department of Finance and the Public Service Board, had seriously challenged or attempted to verify the benefits asserted for the Australian Audit Office's proposed ADP acquisition. After examining the Australian Audit Office's case for restricting tenders for its mainframe computer facility to computers compatible with IBM software, the Committee concluded that the technical benefits to the Australian Audit Office in specifying that its mainframe must be IBM compatible are not persuasive, But that there are non-technical advantages in acquiring an IBM compatible mainframe facility which would be of strategic benefit to the development of the office's ADP capability. The main benefit appears to be the experience that its staff will acquire in the IBM compatible environment common to approximately two-thirds of its major auditees. In addition to these and other conclusions specific to the Australian Audit Office case, the inquiry raises some other concerns about computer acquisitions generally. These concerns relate to the apparent difficulties of some departments in identifying and presenting a comprehensive and comprehensible statement of all costs associated with the proposal; the apparent reluctance of some departments to define and quantify the benefits which will result from the acquisition of ADP facilities; and the absence of satisfactory provisions in these proposals for the performance monitoring systems and output indicators necessary to demonstrate subsequently that these benefits are achieved. The Committee also recommended that the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services expedite its current review of the guidelines for ADP acquisition, with a commitment to issue a revised set of guidelines by the end of 1986. It also recommended that all departments and other organisations with an interest submit their comments and recommendations on the contents and operation of the guidelines to the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services and to this Committee as soon as possible. In brief, the conclusions of this report reinforce the need for greater scrutiny of ADP acquisition proposals by senior management of the acquiring department and by co-ordinating departments involved in the approval and acquisition process. The Committee's findings also emphasise the responsibilities of heads of organisations and of the Department of Finance to ensure that the performance benefits of these ADP facilities are monitored and periodically reviewed. I commend the report to honourable members. Mr WILSON(Sturt) —I present the report of the Australian delegation to the seventy-fourth conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, held in Ottawa, Canada from 2 to 7 September 1985. I seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr WILSON —The Australian delegation to the conference comprised Senator Mal Colston as leader, myself as deputy leader, Senator Margaret Reid, Senator Sibraa, Mr Peter Baldwin and Mr Peter White. The conference was attended by more than 450 members of parliament from 94 countries. It was noteworthy that at this conference, Papua New Guinea was admitted to the membership of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. The leader of our delegation and I were pleased to be the first to congratulate the leader of the Papua New Guinea delegation, Speaker Bonga, on the admission of his country's IPU national group. Whereas the United Nations is made up of representatives of governments, the IPU is made up of representatives of parliaments. In recognition of the fact that not only government but also parliaments have a large influence on the destiny of the human race, the IPU has forged close links with the United Nations. Those links were illustrated by the topics discussed at the Ottawa conference. As 1985 had been designated the International Year of Youth, it was appropriate that the conference should discuss the contribution of parliaments to the International Year of Youth with regard to the full exercise of the rights of youth to education, vocational training, work and social security and the promotion of juridical and other means of combating illicit international drug trafficking, including the preparation of a new convention by the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs. The conference adopted a constructive and far-reaching resolution on this topic. If the parliaments represented at the conference do a fraction of what was proposed in this resolution, the designation by the United Nations of 1985 as International Year of Youth will have been worth while. As it was the 40th anniversary of the United Nations, the second topic chosen was the contribution of parliaments to terminating and consolidating the work of decolonisation started 40 years ago by the United Nations. As honourable members might guess, the debate on this topic was less harmonious than that on the first. Although a resolution was carried by a large majority, because of its lack of balance in a number of very significant areas, the resolution put to the conference was not supported by the Australian delegation. The third item discussed at the conference related to the burden of foreign debt, particularly as it affects developing countries. Although the subject is complex and one on which many contrary views are held by the representatives of different countries, the conference was able to draft a resolution which received unanimous support. Another feature of the conference that I found interesting was that the delegates from different countries form groupings. There is an African group, an Eastern bloc group, a non-aligned group, a group now called the 12 plus and a Nordic group. At first sight that might appear to be undesirable. On the other hand these groups bring together people with common backgrounds, common political views or common interests of some other kind. Australia is a member of the 12 plus group. It was formerly called the 10 plus group and consisted of the 10 European countries plus Canada, the United States of America, Australia and New Zealand. That group began as a regional group. It was expanded because the regional group had within it countries that were truly democratic. Another group of countries that similarly were truly democratic and in some respects had common interests in world trade and so on was added. That group meets, as do the other groups to which I referred, and the interchange of ideas within the groups, the development of new positions and the basis of negotiations between groupings has resulted in the IPU being able to achieve agreement on issues that might not otherwise have attracted such agreement. I mention that because sometimes it is asked whether it is worth while Australia attending such conferences. I believe that, on balance, the ability to talk to other members of parliament and find that we have common problems with other parliaments, as well as common aspirations and a common desire to reach a resolution of some of the world's most intractable problems, makes such conferences worth while. However, there may be a need for Australia-the idea is being developed by our delegation-to look to other groupings. As I have said, the 12 plus group had its origins in Europe. There are now other democratic countries that are not members of the 12 plus group, some of which are in a region close to Australia on the Pacific rim. The Australian delegates to the Ottawa conference began a process of developing links with countries of the Pacific rim because of their regional, strategic and trade interests, and countries of that rim that are true democracies-countries where there are elected parliaments with genuine oppositions that are free to speak and free, on the fairly taken votes of the people, to become governments in their time. There are also meetings at the IPU of members of parliament who are members of the Socialist International. There are also meetings of members of parliament whose parties are members of the International Democrat Union-the union of the conservative parties of democratic countries. That interchange, too, is valuable and is another reason why attendance at the Inter-Parliamentary Union is a worthwhile exercise for Australia. I turn to the location of the conference in Ottawa and place on record the delegation's appreciation of the assistance provided to the delegation by the Australian High Commissioner in Ottawa at the time, Mr Laurie, and of his staff. In particular, I once again thank most sincerely, personally and on behalf of the delegation, the secretary to the delegation, Mr Tom Wharton, for his tireless efforts before the delegation left Australia, while it was away and on its return, and for all that he did to make the visit run smoothly. I also thank the Department of Foreign Affairs adviser, whose advice was valuable and whose presence was enjoyed by all members of the delegation, for the time and effort that he put in in assisting the delegation effectively to discharge its role. The Foreign Affairs adviser to the Ottawa conference was a Mr Geoff Crawford. On behalf of all delegates, I express our thanks to him. Finally, on a personal note, I thank all the members of the delegation for their assistance and support to me as deputy leader. I thank them in this chamber on behalf of the leader of the delegation, who I know also thanked them when tabling the report of the Senate. (Budget Debate) Debate resumed from 21 August, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(10.47) —When the Treasurer (Mr Keating) handed down his Budget on Tuesday, I asked myself what this Budget would do for small businessmen, the farmers, the risk takers, families, the unemployed, the needy and, most importantly, the future of the children of this great country in which the resources and opportunities are limitless. The answer was not encouraging. The Hawke-Keating Budget was directed at the international financial market which since Tuesday has been making quite clear its views and judgments. If we look at the international exchange rates we can see the way in which global judgment has been made on the `world's greatest Treasurer'. At the time the 1983-84 Budget was presented $A1 was worth US85c. There has been a depreciation of 29 per cent and at present $A1 is worth 60c to 62c in the United States. In 1983 $A1 was worth 216 yen. Since then it has depreciated a massive 54.4 per cent and now, under this Budget, $A1 is worth 95.5 yen. That is the global judgment on the world's greatest Treasurer. I would like to refer to the Budget deficit in an historical context and outline what the Treasurer has presented to Australia over the last four Budgets. The 1983-84 Budget had a deficit of $7.9 billion at a time when the drought had broken and there was a surge of income; the 1984-85 Budget had a deficit of $6.6 billion; and 1985-86 the Budget had a deficit of $5.6 billion. Those three deficits totalled $20.1 billion. This year's projected Budget deficit of $3.5 billion increases that total to $23.6 billion. This explodes the myth of financial responsibility by the Treasurer. To achieve the psychological break through that the Government required in the $4 billion Budget deficit that was talked about so much in the Press, the Reserve Bank of Australia contributed $600m from windfall gains from exchange trading. Including the $600m, it contributed a total of $2.6 billion to the receipts side of the Budget. Although the Government obtained $1.4 billion in extra taxes, there has been no cutting of expenditures of any magnitude. A pessimistic forecast in the Budget Papers indicates that inflation will remain at 8 per cent in 1986-87. Very difficult and hard comparisons must be made between our inflation rate and those of other countries. Australia has an inflation rate of 8 per cent; Japan, 0.5 per cent; the United States of America, 1.7 per cent; West Germany, minus 0.2 per cent; France, 2.3 per cent; Italy, 6.3 per cent; the United Kingdom, 2.5 per cent; and Canada, 3.7 per cent. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average is 2.6 per cent and the average of our major OECD trading partners is 2 per cent. Australia's inflation rate is still triple the OECD average, more than four times that of our major trading partners, five times that of the United States of America and more than 16 times that of our major trading partner in Japan. If we turn to the balance of payments problem, which is really at the heart of the difficulties facing Australia at this time, we find that in 1985-86 there was a deficit of $13.7 billion, or 5.5 per cent of gross domestic product. The Budget Papers indicate that there will be a further $14.5 billion deficit next year. I draw the attention of the House to a very interesting projection in June 1986 by the stockbrokers J. B. Were and Son of Melbourne, on the commodity trade and the difficulty facing Australia in the longer term. Australia stands alone amongst developed countries for its dependence on primary exports. A total of 80 per cent of Australia's exports are mining and rural, with little value added. The full impact of the decline in the spot price of most of our export commodities is yet to be fully reflected in the balance of payments. Therefore, we can expect the terms of trade to continue to depreciate regardless of the short term change in commodity prices. The decline in recorded export prices on the balance of payments has already been sufficient to wipe out effectively the benefit of devaluation over the last 12 months. The report reviewed the prices of our commodities. Coal prices fell from a peak of $US55 a tonne in 1981-82 to $US42 a tonne in 1984-85. Wheat prices have fallen from a peak of $US182 a tonne in 1980-81 to $US152 a tonne in 1984-85. They are now ranging between $US130 and $US135 and are falling almost on a weekly basis. Mr Hawker —What will it be next year? Mr McARTHUR —It is very hard to predict what it will be next year and the year after, in view of the excess stocks in the world. Between 1981-82 and the first five months of 1986, wool prices fell by about 21 per cent in US dollar terms. The price of oil has fallen from a peak of around $US40 a barrel in 1980 to about $US14 a barrel at present. The price of Australian iron ore under long term contracts fell from a peak of $US25 a tonne in 1982 to $18 a tonne in 1984. Those figures indicate the problems facing Australian exporters and the difficulty we will have in overcoming our balance of trade problems. The internal forecast, at page 57 of Budget Paper No. 1, contains estimates that are very pessimistic indeed. It states: Private business fixed investment is forecast to remain weak. Improved international competitiveness and profitability should encourage investment in some areas, as should the projected easing in financial conditions. However, for 1986-87 as a whole, the recent tight financial conditions, weak commodity prices and uncertain economic prospects will be dampening influences. Investment in both plant and equipment in non residential building and construction is expected to be subdued. That is putting it in very simple terms. The Westpac Banking Corporation review of July 1986 commented on our need to import long term capital in order to assist the inflow of capital and aid our balance of payments crisis. It made two interesting quotations in a very penetrating report. Firstly, it stated: Fiscal and wages policy both need to be tightened if high interest rates are to be eased sufficiently . . . for firms to invest. Secondly, it stated: . . . it is imperative for Australia to attract large amounts of long term equity capital if its foreign debt problem is to be resolved without excessive reductions in real incomes. The bank has indicated that to overcome our problems we need to have an inflow of equity capital or our standard of living will fall. Turning now to the overseas debt problem, in 1983 the Hawke Government came to power with an overseas debt of about $35 billion. In the August Budget 1986, Treasury estimates the overseas debt to be in the area of $86 billion. This has come about largely because of the persistent, large current account deficits to which I have referred, the excessive expenditure by the Hawke Government, the depreciation of the Australian dollar and restrictive foreign investment guidelines which have favoured overseas borrowings rather than equity investments. To highlight the magnitude of the potential $100 billion debt that we will achieve in the next 18 months, this will represent 35 to 40 per cent of gross domestic product and will generate an annual interest bill of $9 billion or 3.5 per cent of GDP. If we look at the situation in Victoria where the Australian Labor Party is in power, we see quite a dramatic change in that State's debt position. In 1981-82, there was a debt which had been generated over the previous 60 years of $15.8 billion. Some three years later in 1985-86 it had risen to $35 billion. Mr Hawker —That is double. Mr McARTHUR —That is at least double, if one accounts for it accurately. The public liabilities in certain areas have changed quite remarkably. In 1981-82, semi-government authorities had liabilities of $8 billion. That rose to $18 billion. The State Insurance Office had $300,000 worth of liability; that has moved to $1.7 billion. In Victoria there was no liability for leases. But assets have been leased and now there is $1.2 billion worth of leases debt. If we reflect what the Labor States of New South Wales and South Australia have been doing, we see what sorts of debts they may have created in what they call `creative accounting'. Turning to interest rates, which are one of the major disincentives to investment in Australia, we see a remarkable comparison between the 18 per cent prime rate that big businesses are being charged here in Australia and the short term interest rates in our overseas trading partner countries. In West Germany the interest rate runs at about 4.4 per cent, in Japan at 4.7 per cent, in the United States of America at 5.6 per cent, in France at 7.1 per cent, and in Canada at 8.4 per cent. The short term interest rate in Australia is 17.4 per cent. So we can see that Australian businessmen are in great trouble in providing for long term investment with those sorts of interest rates. The Budget Papers also indicate that employment rates for next year will remain high at about 8.3 per cent. The Treasurer was good enough to suggest that they might rise slightly in the next year. The coalition suggests that employment opportunities will be reduced and that unemployment will rise. The Budget Papers have put off the difficult decisions to some future time. Mention is made of the discounting of wages at the January 1987 Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission hearings. It is suggested that this will take place whereas it has yet to be achieved and be agreed to by the trade union movement and the Commission. At a time of economic difficulty, the superannuation arrangements are now getting into place amongst the building industry and other industries. The Budget Papers indicate that a small section of the Australian community is taking superannuation entitlements. The coalition knows this not to be the case in times of austerity and that superannuation is being won on the ground by the trade union movement and being achieved at a rate of about 2.3 per cent. That is the first grab of superannuation claims on the longer term. The Budget Papers suggest a growth rate of 2.25 per cent in the next 12 months. The coalition has great difficulty in establishing how this will be achieved when growth in the last two quarters has been negative. The tax cuts have been postponed. They have now been postponed to December 1986 and July 1987. I wonder whether they will ever be achieved in the present investment and economic climate. Of course, the Budget Papers quite clearly show that there are 24 new taxes. The Government has raised $1.4 billion in extra tax measures and increases. The fringe benefits tax is in place and, likewise, the capital gains tax is in action and working. It is an interesting comparison that the Government has seen fit to cut certain areas of activity. In my electorate of Corangamite it is proposed to close the office of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. It is a small office with four personnel who render a very good service to western Victoria. On investigation, the Department was unable to supply me with any figures of prospective savings. I deplore the priorities of this Government when it proposes to centralise in Melbourne a section which is providing good service. The office in Melbourne will lack the capacity to serve regional Victoria. A coalition government will disband and get rid of a number of commissions and government activities; in the longer term this will provide considerable savings. We will get rid of the Human Rights Commission, the Constitutional Commission, the Commission for the Future, the Prices Surveillance Authority and the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission which will save $17m; similar State instrumentalities already execute those tasks. We will also get rid of the Economic Planning Advisory Council, the Coal Industry Council, the Advisory Committee on Prices and Incomes and the Foreign Investment Review Board. Finally, this Budget will not encourage more businessmen to give jobs to some of our 600,000 unemployed people. This Budget gives no incentive to our risk takers to invest in new enterprises. This Budget does not help people to become more individually responsible for their welfare, education and health. This Budget pays no attention to the needs and aspirations of families. This Budget gives no hope for our children's future. This Budget will not lead us out of our economic disaster. This Budget is not about tomorrow; it is about yesterday and it will not even work today. This Budget will be proved to be a failure. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(11.02) —Before I make any comments on the overall impact of the national Budget, I will make a few references to its impact on the Australian Capital Territory, particularly in light of the fact that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, are in the Chair and I know that you as a shadow Minister once had a great interest in the Australian Capital Territory, and in light of the fact that the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) is at the table and that he has made a great contribution to the Australian Capital Territory economy by giving the go-ahead for the upgrading of Canberra Airport, as honourable members who come in on a weekly basis will see. That is targeted for March 1987 and will be a great asset to the local community. I would like just to make some comments about the Budget as it affects the Australian Capital Territory. I suppose the best summary of it comes from the shadow spokesman on the Australian Capital Territory, Senator Lewis, who in an Australian Broadcasting Corporation program on 20 August-I will quote him because it is a very good summary of what I think of the Budget as it affects the Australian Capital Territory-stated: There were no cuts in the Australian Capital Territory-I have to say my first impression of this budget is that the Minister for Territories has done quite well and I mean . . . certainly not the way we would have gone about it. Mr McGauran —Absolutely. We would cut you back. Mrs KELLY —I would like that interjection from the Opposition recorded. The interjection from the Opposition was: `We would just cut you back'. That is its attitude. Mr McGauran —A privileged protected minority. Mrs KELLY —That interjection was: `A privileged protected minority'. The honourable member should keep going. Mr McGauran —Out of touch with Australia. Mrs KELLY —That interjection was: `Out of touch with Australia'. That is the sort of attitude that persists in the Opposition. It is reflected in the comments and the interjections from the floor today. But, as I have said, I am very pleased with the comments that Senator Lewis made. He was giving due credit to the work done by the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) in supporting the Australian Capital Territory in this Budget. Senator Lewis went on to say: We're looking at Canberra at the present moment and what's happened is that of course the Government has in fact increased its expenditure in the Australian Capital Territory. That is true. In fact there is 2 per cent real growth. Senator Lewis then said: . . . of course there is a need to increase our revenue. But alongside that he says that the Government has also increased its expenditure. He says that business in the Australian Capital Territory will be hit by a land tax, but he agrees with that and says: `That's not unreasonable'. I am very pleased to see this sort of bipartisan support, not from members of the Opposition in the House of Representatives but from the shadow spokesman. The Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) and the Cabinet did do a very good job in the presentation of this Budget for the Australian Capital Territory, because there has been 2 per cent growth in real terms in expenditure in the Australian Capital Territory. That is necessary because this is one of the fastest growth areas in Australia, and part of my electorate, the Tuggeranong Valley, is growing at an enormous rate of about 13 per cent a year. With growth of that kind one has to provide for the sort of infrastructure required for a new community. Mr Dawkins —Like lakes. Mrs KELLY —Yes, like lakes, exactly. I am pleased that I have the support of one of the members of the expenditure review committee in regard to the Tuggeranong Lake. Mr Lee —Stops water pollution. Mrs KELLY —Of course, it stops water pollution and that is the reason for it. It is not to be used just for the recreation purposes of the people of Tuggeranong, although that will help. This is a Budget that gives a commitment to the future of Canberra. I am very proud to be standing here today in support of this Budget because of the very positive impact that it will have on the future of the Territory. There is not just an increase in money for building. There are also opportunities for community services. There has been a substantial increase in funding in a number of social welfare areas. The social welfare vote is increased to $20m, and is up by 27 per cent. Money has also been provided for the care of children programs, and contracts are to be let for 400 public dwellings. There are to be an estimated 248 Commissioner for Housing loans; another $2.4m is available for the supported accommodation assistance program. There is to be money for juvenile justice programs which will be introduced under a special children's services ordinance. There is to be money for mortgage and rent relief; facilities for the care of children with special needs, and I am very pleased that we are to have that facility. Also there is to be an upgrading of some government flats and accommodation. One of the most important things in the Budget for the Australian Capital Territory is that the Government has given a commitment to the future of Canberra and the attempts that many of us have made to diversify the employment base. One of the great initiatives here is the increase in funding to tourism-an increase of over 70 per cent. That is particularly significant because in 1988 we shall be seeing the opening of the new Parliament House. I note that the Opposition said that it would defer that program for several years, but the building of the new Parliament House is significant in its impact on the Australian Capital Territory economy. Once the building is opened, I believe that Canberra will become much more a national capital. I believe that many more companies will establish their national headquarters here and that people from all over Australia will flock here to see their national capital. This is not just a place for 250,000 people; it is a place that belongs to all Australians and a place of which even members of the Opposition should be proud. I also welcome the opportunity to speak on the national aspects of the Budget because this is an historic Budget which has set Australia back on the path to prosperity. This Budget has corrected the fundamentals that needed to be adjusted in the aftermath of the collapse of our export commodity prices. The major adjustments which I believe are necessary for the responsible economic management of Australia and which have been introduced by the Hawke Labor Government include a Budget deficit of $3 1/2 billion; that is, just 1.4 per cent of gross domestic product. This should well be contrasted with the deficit over which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) presided in 1982-83 and bequested to us in 1983-84. Mr Tuckey —Don't be selective. Why not compare it with your $8 billion deficit two years ago? Mrs KELLY —We were trying to bring down your Government's deficit; that is the problem. We were left with the burden of your years of government. One cannot slash from the extra- ordinary heights of deficit left us by the previous Government. Government spending has been held to zero real growth. Again, I contrast that with the 6.9 per cent growth for which the Leader of the Opposition was responsible in the 1982-83 Budget. This Government has taken hard decisions. Mr Tuckey —You are kidding. Mrs KELLY —Well, the Opposition could not tell us last night where it was going to take those decisions. The Hawke Government recognises that a depreciation induced inflationary cycle would be very damaging for the economy. We will not allow this and through our wages policy, the accord, we will continue to deliver lower wage outcomes. The Government will argue that a 2 per cent discount is necessary in the next national wage case. However, the Opposition's plan for our industrial scheme, if it has a plan, would mean chaos. It would mean that some unions would gain wage increases in excess of the 2 per cent rise we support. Others, of course, would gain nothing. Look at our record since April 1983-real labour costs have fallen by 7 per cent. The depreciation of the Australian dollar has Australia placed at its most competitive position since the war. The opportunity to restructure our economy will never be greater. The business community must take up these opportunities. It is a great shame that we do not have bipartisan support for the efforts we are making to turn around the economy. The significant reduction in the Budget deficit means that in 1986-87 there will be no new net bond selling program. This will ease interest rate pressures and improve incentive for investment. There is also a substantial fall in the ratio of public sector borrowing requirement to gross domestic product. This also will reduce pressure on financial markets. The Government will proceed with its planned income tax cuts. These reductions will increase incentive and boost consumer confidence. The second stage of the cuts will be introduced on 1 July 1987. We are keeping that commitment and that is part of the legislation. These measures will support the underlying improvement in our current account deficit which is occurring. The first half of 1986 saw import values falling sharply and export values increasing. So the signs are there; improvements will come. These are difficult times, but it would be of great benefit to this country if the Opposition would stop nitpicking and provide some constructive alternatives and maybe a little bipartisan support. The fundamental underlying improvement has been masked by the collapse of our commodity prices. What has been the reaction to the Budget? Let us examine some of the editorials at the quality end of the Press. The Australian Financial Review says: . . . economically responsible and politically honest. The Age says: The Budget is tough. But also, as promised, the Treasurer has done his utmost, within the constraints imposed by economic imperatives, to distribute the burdens fairly. The Australian-even the Australian-says: All in all, it is as good a Budget as could be expected. For the Australian, that is a big improvement. But what happened when the Opposition's alternative Budget was presented last night? What did the Australian say about it in its editorial this morning? It said nothing-it did not get a mention. That is what the Australian thought of it. It did not think it worth while making any editorial comment. Meanwhile the Australian Financial Review this morning says: What did the Leader of the Opposition produce? A speech which was long on rhetoric but a little short on rigorous analysis. What did the Sydney Morning Herald say? It said that Mr Howard: . . . failed in his Budget reply speech to solve his own credibility problem. While criticising the Government for not making deeper and more permanent spending cuts in this week's Budget, he again failed to say which government programs he would cut. That is what the papers say about the Leader of the Opposition this morning, and it is easy to see why there are not too many smiling faces on the Opposition benches. In contrast the response from the community to the fourth Keating Budget has been very positive indeed. Leading businessmen and business organisations have been very surprised by the effectiveness of this Budget. When they were surveyed prior to the Budget and asked what they thought the deficit should be, their responses were varied. John Elliot, from Elders IXL Ltd, said he would prefer a $3.5 billion deficit. Sir Arvi Parbo said he would prefer a $4 billion deficit with no growth in government spending. The Business Council of Australia said it would like to see no real growth in outlays with about a $4 billion deficit. What did the Budget deliver? Thanks to people like the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) who is at the table today, and who is a member of the expenditure review committee, the Budget delivered a $3.5 billion deficit, no real growth in government expenditure and major cuts in social security, health, education, defence and overseas aid. We have met-and largely bettered-the target set for us in the business and financial community. I eagerly await the commitment of these business spokespersons, like Mr Elliot and Sir Arvi Parbo, to continue to invest in Australia. It would be a great pity if political prejudice were responsible for plunging Australia into a recession. The Government has made its contribution. We are spreading the burden as equitably as we can. Yesterday I went out to speak at a lunch for pensioners in my electorate. The message from those people to this Parliament and to the Australian people was: `We know these are tough times; we are prepared to pull in our belts for the future of Australia'. What they want is a bit of co-operation from all sectors of the community-- Mr McGauran —From the trade union movement. Mrs KELLY —The trade union movement has, in fact, been giving a fair bit of co-operation. We need that same co-operation from honourable members opposite, the business community and the community at large. We have set the foundation for the recovery of this country, and I congratulate the Government for providing this framework for the future. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(11.18) —Over the past two years country Australians have done their best to warn the Hawke Labor Government and Australians generally of the impending cost price squeeze that has been strangling the life blood out of our productive export industries. Their crisis has become our crisis-the Government's crisis. It is a national economic crisis. This Budget should have directed efforts to restoring investment and confidence in our productive industries, especially our export industries. It has failed. The honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) called on Sir Arvi Parbo, John Elliot and the big corporate people to invest. The trade union movement is calling for corporate enterprises to invest. Those enterprises will not invest unless they are satisfied that the investment will be wisely based on behalf of their shareholders. It is all very well for people to say `invest, invest, invest' when the climate for investment is anything but conducive to profit. As a nation we must be singleminded about our goals-to get costs down and exports up. This Budget is one of lost opportunities. It is seen as such by the money markets with the dollar having fallen sharply again since the Budget. It has not redressed the mauling of the country people and it has exposed Labor's rhetoric for what it is. The Government seeks to lay the blame for our crisis on low world commodity prices. Sure, commodity prices are low, but there is little we can do to overcome that problem. However, there is much we can do to improve our own competitiveness as a nation. The Budget has failed to come to grips with the all important area of domestic production costs. Our export industries have been handicapped with near record interest rates which are at least double those of our trade competitors. This Budget will give no relief at all to the interest rate problem which is bearing heavily down on small business, on the corporate sector, the farming sector and, indeed, the employment sector. Our inflation rate is up to eight times that of our major competitors. The wages policy has guaranteed that real increases are well beyond overseas trends and the capacity of the nation to pay. Therefore, we will continue to plunge deeper and deeper into debt as a nation. What a miserable prospect this is for young people today. What a miserable prospect for our children. What sort of a nation are we when we leave to our children a greater debt burden than past generations left us in spite of war. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) talks about being in a state of war. The economy is in such a state that it is almost as if we have been at war. It is an outrage that he should try to draw such an analogy in peacetime. In 1982 the external debt was $25 billion. I repeat that figure-$25 billion. Last year the increase alone was $18 billion and it has increased now to a total of $86 billion and it is running as fast as it can towards $100 billion. This is a high taxing Budget. Farmers in particular should not believe that they have escaped the usual severe blows this time around. Tragically, the Budget will fail to reverse those conditions which are sending the Australian living standards on an accelerating downward slide. Mr McGauran —They are plummeting. Mr HUNT —Yes, plummeting. In his introductory remarks, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) stressed the world trade problem. He should have put his comments in perspective. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics shows an 8 per cent increase in returns for farmers against a rise of 26 per cent in costs since 1983. I repeat those figures because they are important. Cost increases have amounted to 26 per cent since 1983 as against the increase in returns of 8 per cent. It is no good just blaming world commodity prices for Australia's farm problems. The depressed world markets are not the major cause of the rural downturn. Our cost structure is a major problem. The wages policy of the Hawke Labor Government will accelerate the declining terms of trade for farmers and small businesses throughout Australia. The promised 2 per cent discount of wages for the devaluation is set against an estimated inflation rate of 8 per cent in the Budget Papers. But who believes 8 per cent? Under the wage indexation provisions of the accord, wage increases will once again outstrip those of our major trading competitors. The Treasurer makes great play of corrupted world markets but ignores the need to reduce industry input costs to give Australian export industries a fighting chance. While I acknowledge the reduction of the deficit to $3.5 billion, which has been largely achieved by increasing taxes, we need to examine the relative outlays as a percentage of the gross domestic product over the past few years. In real terms the spending in this Budget is higher than in any of the seven Fraser Government years. Amazingly, at 29.4 per cent-that is, outlays as a percentage of the GDP-it is higher than in any of the Whitlam Budgets during those disastrous years. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table which shows the outlays as a percentage of the GDP. Leave granted. The table read as follows- HISTORICAL BUDGET TABLES (MARCH QUARTER 1986 NATIONAL ACCOUNTS) OUTLAYS Outlays $m non-f GDP deflator Outlays real % change GDP $m Outlays ($m) % GDP 1945-46... 9.8 3,006 1946-47... 10.6 3,234 1947-48... 11.6 3,988 1948-49... 12.9 4,401 1949-50... 14.2 5,191 1950-51... 15.5 6,905 1951-52... 19.4 7,419 1952-53... 20.2 8,401 1953-54... 2,081 23.1 9,009 9,184 22.7 1954-55... 2,149 23.8 9,029 0.2 9,782 22.0 1955-56... 2,349 23.9 9,828 8.8 10,591 22.2 1956-57... 2,461 24.7 9,964 1.4 11,528 21.3 1957-58... 2,619 26.4 9,920 -0.4 11,782 22.2 1958-59... 2,817 26.4 10,670 7.6 12,661 22.2 1959-60... 3,061 26.6 11,508 7.8 13,974 21.9 1960-61... 3,237 27.5 11,771 2.3 14,841 21.8 1961-62... 3,620 28.1 12,883 9.4 15,208 23.8 1962-63... 3,770 28.5 13,228 2.7 16,416 23.0 1963-64... 4,145 29.0 14,293 8.1 18,238 22.7 1964-65... 4,532 30.1 15,056 5.3 20,078 22.6 1965-66... 5,029 31.1 16,170 7.4 21,098 23.8 1966-67... 5,640 32.2 17,516 8.3 23,259 24.2 1967-68... 6,225 33.4 18,638 6.4 24,828 25.1 1968-69... 6,613 34.7 19,058 2.3 28,026 23.6 1969-70... 7,348 36.5 20,132 5.6 31,041 23.7 1970-71... 8,102 38.5 21,044 4.5 34,266 23.6 1971-72... 9,047 41.1 22,012 4.6 38,367 23.6 1972-73... 10,190 43.8 23,265 5.7 43,717 23.3 1973-74... 12,229 49.9 24,507 5.3 52,418 23.3 1974-75... 17,837 60.8 29,337 19.7 63,191 28.2 1975-76... 21,787 70.8 30,773 4.9 74,616 29.2 1976-77... 24,047 78.8 30,516 -0.8 85,281 28.2 1977-78... 26,690 85.3 31,290 2.5 92,711 28.8 1978-79... 28,934 91.1 31,761 1.5 105,287 27.5 1979-80... 31,470 100.0 31,470 -0.9 118,829 26.5 1980-81... 36,020 110.6 32,568 3.5 135,188 26.6 1981-82... 41,206 123.3 33,419 2.6 152,756 27.0 1982-83... 48,812 136.8 35,681 6.8 167,534 29.1 1983-84... 56,460 147.4 38,304 7.4 189.255 29.8 1984-85... 63,739 156.8 40,650 6.1 209,745 30.4 1985-86... 69,946 167.8 41,690 2.6 233,236 30.0 1986-87... 0 29.4 1987-88... 0 1988-89... 0 Sources: Budget papers back to 1975-76 inclusive, RBA O/P 8Aand ABS Cat. No. 5204.0 1984-85. Mr HUNT —Against this background of the current deep recession, several key assumptions in the Budget Papers, including the projected inflation rate and unemployment growth, are more than questionable. Very few people in the financial world believe that the projected growth rate of slightly more than 2 per cent will be achieved or that the projected deficit can be sustained. The thrust of this Budget has been to hit the community with higher taxes. The hoped for $3.5 billion deficit is based on higher revenue rather than spending cuts. Once again country Australians will, of course, be hit hardest by this Budget. The 3c a litre increase in the fuel excise will hit hardest those in country areas and remote regions. When Labor took office fuel excise was 6c a litre. Today it is nearly 24c a litre-it has quadrupled! Labor promised a 3c a litre fuel price drop in 1983. Instead it has quadrupled the fuel tax and denied the farmers and the community the full benefit of falling world oil prices. Under pressure from huge farmer rallies and the Opposition, the Hawke Government restored the fuel distillate rebate to farmers but only after having robbed them of nearly $50m over the two years for which it withdrew it. The Government refuses to acknowledge that on average farmers use 60 per cent of distillate and 40 per cent of petrol on farm. I ask honourable members to listen to this: The petrol excise now costs farmers more than $200m per annum without taking into account the increasing costs of transportation. Labor's fuel taxes are a devastating rip-off from country Australians, the productive export industries and, indeed, all Australians. The Government's reliance on fuel tax as a major source of revenue is undermining our ability to improve our poor export performance. It is not only incredible but also totally irresponsible for any government in this country-I repeat, any government in this country-to tax fuel to the extent to which it has been taxed. Australian transportation costs represent a very significant factor in production costs generally as far as export industries are concerned. Not only are they distant from overseas markets but also, in many cases, the product is produced at a great distance from ports. Therefore, fuel represents a very significant component cost of transportation in this country. In a highly urbanised nation such as Australia this fact is sparingly understood. Indeed, it is a long-established practice to seek to suck resources from the export industries by all sorts of means. The tariff and the tax regime have been built around the export industries of this country because we have been an exporting nation. But those days are gone, and the sooner Australians recognise it the better. With hindsight the former Government would have been wiser, when adopting import parity pricing, not to have taken the revenue windfall from the old Bass Strait oil fields and thus become so dependent upon fuel as a source of its revenue. The present Government, quite foolishly, gave up its opportunity to become less dependent on fuel as a source of revenue when the Prime Minister did his behind-closed-doors deal with the Australian Council of Trade Unions behind the back of the Treasurer last year and abandoned the principle of a broad-based consumption tax. While there were problems with the Treasurer's option C, it was a far better option than the tax rag bag that we currently have. High taxes on fuel when energy resource prices are low is the worst of all worlds for a country such as Australia with its acute balance of trade problems. It is totally illogical and destructive of the export industries' competitive capacity. The reasons for this are, firstly, that low oil prices and low coal prices-indeed, low energy resource prices-cause significant reductions in Australia's export income; and secondly, that the high fuel taxes reduce the competitiveness of other export industries, such as the wheat industry, in the international market-place. It is a tragedy that this point is not being recognised by this Government at a time of our balance of trade crisis. The dependence on fuel as a source of tax revenue is undermining Australia's ability to improve its balance of trade problems and undermining the living standards of all Australians while other countries have allowed the benefit of lower world oil prices to reduce inflation and to reduce industrial input costs. Why is it that in Japan, Germany and so many other countries, apart from having different wage regimes, their inflation rate has gone into minus figures? It is because of the lower world oil prices that have benefited those economies. Mr McGauran —And they don't have socialist governments. Mr HUNT —That is true. The Australian Government has gone in the opposite direction and quadrupled the fuel excise from 6c a litre to 24c a litre. It is an act of utter madness. There was never a greater need to widen the Australian tax base to get away from a tax regime that is undermining the capacity of Australian export industries to reduce the balance of trade payment problems. The Australian land transport program-the roads program-is a follow-up on the Fraser Government's move to upgrade Australia's road infrastructure. Mr Charles —Who was the Minister then? Mr HUNT —I was the Minister then when we introduced the bicentennial road program-a very important and tremendous program. This program has been slashed while other areas of government cost saving have been overlooked. Road programs lose a further $24m on top of the $50m cut in June, and this comes on top of State Labor government allocations away from urgent country road works. Another feature of the anti-rural bias is the transfer to domestic production of the fertiliser bounties currently payable on imports. Bounties were payable on both local and imported fertiliser. Through a lack of competition, this will force up the market price of imported fertiliser, some of which is not available from Australian manufacturers. This increase in the imported price will ensure that domestic prices will rise. This will increase farmers' costs-all to protect the local industry. Let us not forget the words of the union leader, Mr O'Leary, at the height of the Prime Minister's fertiliser debacle-or the DAP debacle-in January during the Western Australian election campaign. He said it was deplorable for a Labor government to put workers on the industrial scrapheap. It is one thing to put workers on the scrapheap but another to put farmers and their families off their farms. This decision smells of a panic reaction to union pressure which will cost farmers tens of millions of dollars. Already the direct cost of protecting secondary industry alone doubles the average net farmer income of over $9,000 per annum. Departmental officers cannot see how the Budget decision can be implemented. It is an idiotic and indefensible decision and I think it is a decision that will not last, or will not stick, because it is virtually administratively impossible. Australian producers are importers as well. Sixty per cent of our phosphate is locally produced and 40 per cent is imported. I bet that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is absolutely maddened by this stupid decision that has probably come out of the mind of some person in the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce who is hell-bent on trying to protect the local fertiliser industry. I cannot understand the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) being foolish enough to come forward with such a stupid idea. The Hawke Labor Government is thrashing farmers with another huge new protection bill simply because it lacks the political courage to set in place a bounty to protect those jobs at a cost to the community as a whole. It should not be a cost to the farmers. It makes a mockery of the superphosphate subsidy scheme. Despite enormous pressure from outside and within Labor ranks the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax are to remain. These iniquitous taxes will be wiped out by the next Liberal-National Party government. The Treasurer may have won out this time but Labor will lose the next election, whenever that is held, if for no reason other than this stupid tax. The unfair, unjustified fringe benefits tax is seen throughout Australia as a complex, idiotic and unfair tax which will cost jobs. I ask honourable members to listen to this: Remote employers will pay $38 a week in fringe benefits tax for each employee dwelling where rent is not charged-a bill of $1,485 a year-whether or not they make a profit. This shock revelation was made on the day of the Budget. The statutory annual rent for remote area housing will be-and listen to this-$7,170 to next June, or $138 a week. The statutory rental of $138 a week is being used for the purposes of the fringe benefits tax for remote area housing. What an outrage for outback rural accommodation, outback employers and outback employees. When this amount is discounted by 40 per cent, then taxed at 46 per cent, the housing tax alone of $1,485 is the minimum valuation. The only other option is to argue the matter with the tax man at one's own cost. The unbelievable red tape and the extremely high cost to employers associated with this tax will reduce the incomes of farmers by 36 per cent. Wine producers have once again suffered from a broken Labor promise. During the 1983 election campaign, the Minister for Primary Industry said: Labor will not impose a sales tax or excise tax on wine. He underlined the words `will not'. The 10 per cent sales tax imposed in the 1984 Budget will now be doubled to 20 per cent, at a time when many producers are experiencing their fourth year of negative returns. Ironically, the Government has implemented a $1.4m scheme to pull vines and, of course, this 20 per cent tax will ensure that every cent is spent. The only other wine sales tax in Australian history was imposed at the height of the Great Depression and then at only 2.5 per cent. Of course, the imposition of a 10 per cent sales tax on previously exempt fruit juice products is a devastating blow to fruit juice growers. Farmers and rural communities have suffered at the hands of this Government. No sector has been singled out for worse treatment. The Minister has underlined Labor's cosmetic attitude to primary producers in a statement he made the other day. He said: What farmers are demanding, as articulated by the NFF, is that Government policy be directed toward fixing them up. But that would cost whatever party is in power, government. This Government has failed the farmers, it has failed their families, it has failed the average Australian and it has failed its own constituency. In short, it has failed. It had a chance to recover with this Budget but, as the declining value of the dollar testifies, it has failed Australia. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(11.38) —The Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), made great play in his speech of the fuel excise taxes. He presented a number of tables and statistics, some of which were incorporated in his speech. However, as he did not bring forward many statistics regarding the fuel excise, I will give him one now. In 1980 and 1981, at the height of the then Government in which he was a very senior Minister, fuel excise and liquefied petroleum gas excise amounted to 8.9 per cent-nearly 9 per cent-of total tax receipts. That figure today is 1.8 per cent. As the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said yesterday, honourable members opposite had the easy money when they were in government. It is no use now for the Deputy Leader of the National Party to come into this place and say, as he did, that in hindsight they should not have done it. In other words, he was saying: `We were a bit stupid then, we did not really know what we were doing, but now we are a bit older and wiser and we would not have done that'. At that time nearly 9 per cent of all tax receipts was in fuel and today it is down to 1.8 per cent. The Deputy Leader of the National Party crowed about what the previous Government should not have done, but it is too late. Those decisions should have been made correctly then. The fact that that figure has decreased dramatically to 1.8 per cent shows what a responsible Budget we have before us. This Government has brought in a deficit of $3.5 billion. Of course, that deficit has been brought down from the historically high level of $9.6 billion which we faced when we won government in 1983. The fourth Hawke Government budget is economically responsible and politically honest. Those are not my words, they are from the front page of the Australian Financial Review on the morning after the Budget was presented in this House. The Budget provides for zero real growth in outlays, which has occurred in only three of the past 30 years. The net bond selling task will also be zero and, is I have mentioned, the deficit will be brought down to $3.5 billion. When we came to government we were faced with a deficit of $9.6 billion left by the Treasurer of the day, the now Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard). He was the Treasurer for five years and during that time he presided over that catastrophic recession of 1981-82 when inflation was beyond 11 per cent and approximately 200,000 extra people were thrown on the unemployment list. The medicine which has had to be administered in this Budget has been spread thinly and widely so that all Australians will share some of the burden and will assist in helping our great country to climb back up the economic ladder. Australia needs to re-industrialise and to do it relatively quickly. We are now paying for the economic incompetence, lack of planning and foresight and massive protection of, in some cases, uneconomic industries by the Menzies-McEwen regime of the 1950s and 1960s. The trading problems, which are causing us so much concern at the moment and which are the main ingredient in our economic ills, can mostly be traced back to the Menzies era. Notwithstanding our tight economic circumstances, however, this Budget has made some significant reforms which will be brought into operation over the next 12 months. I will name a few of them quickly, then go back over them. The Australia Card will be brought in with a photograph; the reform of the pharmaceutical area will benefit particularly the chronically ill; there will be extensive lifts in the community service programs; extra money will be provided for diabetics; the tax cuts will come in; and extra money will be provided for veterans. One of the major things this Budget will do will be to lower interest rates in the long term. That will benefit not only home owners and young families but also small businesses which need relief from the relatively high interest rates operating at present. The Government will pursue the Australia Card issue right to the end. An Australia Card with photograph is wanted overwhelmingly by the Australian people and will bring this Government around $800m a year when it is fully operative. It is ironic that it was the Leader of the Opposition who said around 12 months ago that he supported the idea. But now, purely for political reasons, the Liberal Party of Australia will vote against it. Honourable members opposite do not want $800m; they do not want to see Australia get back on its economic feet. They will vote against it for purely political reasons, to try to drive another wedge into the Australian economy. The Government will not give in to that sort of blackmail. We will pursue the Australia Card because it is a very good idea. In the pharmaceutical area, we have seen the change from $5 to $10 per prescription. That is the maximum payment and the average figure will probably be around $7 to $7.50 per prescription. This provision applies to a maximum of 25 prescriptions per year for individuals or families. Chronically ill individuals or family members-for example, cases where there are two or three asthmatics in a family-would use a lot more than 25 prescriptions a year. Once they have had their 25 scripts at an average price of $7.50, every script is free. The chronically ill and families that have a high usage of prescriptions will be better off. It will be the healthier people, so to speak, who use only a handful of scripts a year, who will be paying the full rate. We have seen a fairly extensive lift in community service programs. There has been an increase of 11.1 per cent as a continuation of the Government's move towards the rationalisation of services in the community, to get more home help and domiciliary care and to move away from the institutionalised care that grew under 31 years of conservative rule. In regard to the home and community care program, in the 1984-85 financial year, the Commonwealth provided $78m to provide services for the aged and others with disabilities living in their own homes, including home help, home nursing, delivered meals, paramedical services, senior citizen services and co-ordination services. In 1985-86, expenditure under the joint agreements for the States was $101m. The range of services eligible for assistance was expanded to allow for transport, linen, laundry services and respite care. This financial year has seen the allocation again increased, to $132m, under the provisions of agreements. The allocation will continue to increase over the next few years. It is a significant reform and one that will be appreciated by many thousands in our community. Total expenditure on community services will be $1,867m, or an increase of 11.1 per cent. Of this, about $26m in this financial year has been earmarked for new initiatives. This increase in expenditure will be concentrated on the restructuring of residential care services for the aged in line with the recommendations of the nursing homes and hostels review. It is a watershed in the reshaping of care for our aged population. We have seen children's services increased dramatically. Expenditure has risen from $61m in 1982-83, the last Fraser-Howard Budget, to $146m in 1985-86. This progress will continue and we shall achieve our extra 20,000 childcare places over the next couple of years. There has been dramatic reform of child care, expenditure on which has more than doubled. The number of places has been increased dramatically. I shall refer to some other areas of community services. The capital grants for aged persons homes and hostels has increased from $46m to $56m. As I have said, HACC will increase from $101m to $132m. Handicapped persons assistance will increase from $109m to $126m. Assistance to families and children's services will increase from $162m to $194m. The supported accommodation assistance program will have its funding increased from $33m to $47m. The total services all up will increase by $206m in the overall budget for community services. On 1 July 1987 pensioners with children will be allowed to receive income of $12 per week per child. This is a 100 per cent increase on the present rate. We shall abolish the separate income test for rent assistance, and 300,000 pensioners will benefit by up to $15 per week. The allowable income for pensioners will increase from $30 to $40 per week for single people, and from $50 to $70 per week for married couples. These are the levels at which pensions will start to reduce. These significant reforms will take place on 1 July 1987. The Government would have liked to introduce them earlier, but with the constraints that are upon us I think that the Government has done a magnificent job to restructure community service, reform pensions and increase significantly a great range of pensions over the past few years. We shall maintain the present pension rate. It will come close, I believe, to reaching 25 per cent of average weekly earnings over the next 18 months. It is worth noting that the Government has not left youth out of the Budget. In fact, it has done the exact opposite. I shall quote some figures to show the Government's concern for the young people of Australia. I think that a conservative government would have sliced into the funding of youth affairs, as the previous government attempted to do in its last Budget when it abolished funding for CYSS, although it caved in a few months afterwards. In this Budget, even under the restraints that we faced, the Government has increased funding for the Australian trainee system from $2m to $35m. Funding for the community youth support scheme will increase from $31m to $35m. Expenditure on the community training program will increase from $5m to $9.5m. Education allowances will increase from $401 to $480m. It is worth noting the new austudy allowance, which is a major reform again of the education system. It incorporates the tertiary education assistance scheme, the secondary allowances scheme and a number of other allowances. There will be a move to one allowance. Different ages and living at home or away from home will determine the rate. This is a major reform of our education allowance scheme. There will be an increased number of tertiary places and the funding will increase from $70m to $116m. These are some examples of the assistance that we are giving to young people and to the education system. With the legislation that the Government has already brought into the House it has guaranteed that tax cuts, which were part of the overall tax package brought forward by the Treasurer-- Mr Cadman —You have taken more than that away from people already. Mr CHARLES —Rates will continue to fall, and will be completed by 1 July 1987, when the top rates will be 40c and 49c in the dollar, which is in contrast to you. You bleat now about the 60c rate, but what did you do for 31 out of the 34 years when you were in government? You were in government for 31 out of 34 years prior to March 1983. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member for Isaacs will address his remarks through the Chair. Mr CHARLES —At the end of that period, Mr Deputy Speaker, the top tax rate was still 60c in the dollar. This is the Government that will bring it down to 40c and 49c. Those will be the top rates under this Government. The Leader of the Opposition, who was Treasurer for five years, did nothing about reducing tax rates. It is all very well bleating now, as the Deputy Leader of the National Party did when he was talking about fuel taxes, but the facts show that the previous Government ripped 9 per cent of total tax receipts from fuel. That has been reduced to 1.8 per cent now. The previous Government left the top taxation rate at 60c in the dollar. However, Opposition members are now bleating about how they would change the tax system. What did they do when they were in government for three decades? The answer is nothing. They did nothing. All that they did was reform the tax system to benefit the rich. That is what happened during the time that the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) was a member of the Fraser Government. The tax system was changed subtly and the average worker, as a proportion of this tax take, had his tax increased by about 25 per cent. Some on very low incomes had it increased by 70 per cent. Those earning $1,000 a week or more had their tax take decreased by 3 per cent. If the honourable gentleman wants to check those figures, I invite him to go to an independent source. The figures are accurate, my friend. That is what honourable members opposite did, but they come in bleating now about the tax system. It is this Government that has had the guts to reform the tax system and this Government which will stand by it. That is why it will receive the support of the people, not only now but at the next election. It is a responsible Budget; it is a Budget which Australia needs. It will lower interest rates. Reforms have been brought in with this Budget in regard to the Australia Card, the pharmaceutical area, community services, and diabetics. Money will be directly granted to the Australian Diabetes Foundation-$1.8m this year, $7 1/2m in a full year-for syringes and needles which will be delivered free of charge to diabetics. The tax cuts will be introduced, and we have also seen a real increase in veterans' pensions. Not only is there a delivery of the tax cuts, but also a continuation of the major reforms in the social security system. For all those reasons, and because of the economic incompetence that has been shown by past conservative governments and the present performance of the pathetic Opposition that sits opposite us now, I commend this highly responsible and economically honest Budget to the House and to the Australian people. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(11.57) —The honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles) has ranged widely in his speech, but responsible this Budget is not. Further, it will certainly be a red letter day for pensioners if this Government ever gets the rate of pension up to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. As for the tax reductions, let me remind him that the Government has already set the stage to take back, via indirect taxes, the taxation reductions it has handed out this year, and I will have some comments to make later about the probability of the Government's giving effect to the tax reductions promised for 1 July next year. Mr Webster —Indian givers. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Indian givers, as my colleague says. This Budget has been put forward to address what the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has referred to as a `crisis equal to war'. But in the event, it shows few signs of a response consistent with so grave a situation, which is extremely concerning. Even more importantly, this Government does not have a framework of policy to effect the major changes in longstanding attitudes and institutions which are essential to make this country a more productive, competitive, humane and secure Australia for the long-term benefit of all Australians. I will come back to the coalition's commitments to effect such major change. Notably, these are in the areas of, first, reducing the weight of government in the economy. The Government should spend, borrow and tax much less, and as well interfere less. Second, there is the area of effecting meaningful tax reform, where we propose less taxation in total, and within that, significant reductions in marginal income tax rates and in a way which favours the family. Third, we would reform dramatically Australia's rigid, archaic wages and industrial relations system. That includes fostering a greater sense of common purpose between employers and employees. Among other measures, we would provide tax incentives to encourage employee share acquisition and profit sharing with a view to fostering an environment in which Australian employees, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) put it last night, can see that their pockets will benefit and that they will have more at stake in the prosperity of their firm than they do in the industrial success of their union. At the same time, the Liberal and National parties in government will move to curb extremist union power, which will require, among other things, that unions and union bosses, like everyone else, are subject to the ordinary courts, real courts of law. To come back to the Budget situation here and now, what needs to be said time and again is that the present acute, parlous predicament of the economy has been largely brought about by the Hawke Government itself. Until a month or so ago we had all that hype about growth, prosperity and good economic management. But economic growth under the Hawke Government has been fatally flawed. It has been growth `on tick', as I put it on a previous occasion, the `prosperity' of the spendthrift borrower, with the massive and ill-judged Budget deficits of the Hawke Government the central factor. All the profligate spending of the Government-Government members cannot deny that; let them think back to that greatest spend up of all time, the 1984 Budget, when sport and recreation spending went up 60 per cent, the community employment program expenditure increased 80 per cent, the Bicentennial spending increased by 350 per cent, and there were large tax cuts to boot-inevitably spilled over into increasing deficit in the balance of payments, generating the very adverse situation there long before the serious decline in the terms of trade which we hear so much about from the Government, almost to the exclusion of anything else, set in. It is admitted that that, certainly over the past six months, has exacerbated the situation. So, for two years and more, with this Government and the country generally living beyond their means, we have had this yawning gap in the balance of payments, $1,000m a month or, as I have consistently pointed out, $30m to $50m further into hock every day. Yet even into May last-as I well know because amid some hilarity I threw up a question to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) urging him to face up squarely to the reality of this yawning deficit amid rising inflation-the Treasurer and the Prime Minister persisted in what was nothing other than a deliberate misinformation process. They shamelessly misled the Parliament. They misled the Australian people. Indeed, they misled their own Labor Caucus colleagues. But then, as we know, suddenly the Treasurer discovered we were on the way to becoming a banana republic. What a sea change in attitude that was. Much more belatedly, the Prime Minister joined in. In very solemn terms he spoke of Australia as `a nation in a crisis equal to war'. I agree; the Government having let things slide so long, the gravity of the situation all but does warrant that reference. But then all the more should be the condemnation of this Budget as too little and too late. I recognise, and the Opposition recognises, that there is no quick fix, no easy, no overnight solutions. There is a long, hard haul ahead. But this Budget, while superficially it seems to meet the requirements of the market-place-I refer particularly to the overseas lenders to whom, whether we like it or not, we are beholden, like any other excessive borrower, especially when the vast borrowing over the past three years has gone to prop up consumption in this country, not capital spending for development and sustainable growth-in reality it does not. It is a phoney; it really is: And in the process, it stores up quite immense problems for future years. Let me set them out. Mr Deputy Speaker, I will refer to some figures here. To make them intelligible to readers of Hansard, I have prepared a small table, which I showed to the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) for inclusion. I ask for that to be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Underlying Deficit into 1987-88 $ billion Deficit 1986-87... 3.5 Add-revenue items: Reserve Bank windfall profits from exchange rate devaluation... 0.6 Saving from deferred tax cuts... 0.65 Add-expenditure side: Effect of spending decisions-Table BP No. 1 p. 71-lesser 1987-88 effect... 0.5 5.2 Add-cost of 1 July 1987 tax reductions (and neglecting other smaller items)... 3.1 Total implied deficit... 8.3 Dr HARRY EDWARDS —I thank the House. We have had all the fanfare about a $3.5 billion deficit, lower than most expected. But the way the Government has arrived at this figure does not provide the basis for the longer term solution of Australia's Budget problems. There are too many once-off factors and mere shifts in timing, which help the situation this year, but compound future years' problems. On the revenue side, there is, first, the deferring of the promised tax cuts to 1 December. The effect is to save some $750m of revenue, but only for this year. Again the Budget relies heavily on a $2.6 billion dividend payment to be made by the Reserve Bank of Australia to the Government. Of this, about $600m, we are told, represents windfall profits from exchange rate devaluation. However, as the aim of policy is to restrain any further devaluation, one cannot look to that element next year. So taking those elements into account, the underlying deficit situation is $3.5 billion plus those two items, or $4.7 billion. On the spending side, there are similar one-off or shifts in timing factors. If we look at the table itemising spending cuts on page 71 of Budget Paper No. 1, we see that in the aggregate of nearly $2 billion of `cuts'-these are cuts from enhanced Forward Estimates, not from last year's expenditure-some $500m arises from delayed payment and such like arrangements. So, the continuing benefit into 1987-88 is $500m less. The underlying deficit is thus greater by that further amount, bringing it to $5.2 billion. There are some other positive and negative elements which I shall pass over. On top of that, the Government is committed to implementing on 1 July 1987 its so-called tax reform rate scale, with the top marginal rate of 49c, to which the honourable member for Isaacs referred, involving tax cuts to cost some $3.1 billion. Indeed, in a fine show of confidence and bravado, the Government has said that it will introduce legislation this session to provide for that 1 July 1987 tax scale. But taking this into account, the Government will go into 1987-88 with an underlying deficit of more than $8 billion! And even that depends on some pretty sanguine assumptions about growth in real gross domestic product this financial year. That is the measure of the fiscal problem which this Government, presiding over a situation which we are told, truthfully at last, is a `crisis equal to war', is passing on to next year-the legacy of a deficit outlook for 1987-88 which can only be described as devastating. While one spending program has been axed in this Budget-the Budget is certainly aptly described as one of `Too much taxing, not enough axing'-spending programs will have to be under the axe in 1987. Mr Webster —It is all due to a lot of laxity. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —The Government did not face up to the real gravity of the position, despite the rhetoric of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. Mr Cadman —You quoted what the Treasurer said in that regard in March of this year? Dr HARRY EDWARDS —I shall come back to that. With this in prospect, plus continuing high inflation exacerbated by the sales tax and excise increases in the Budget, flat investment, whereas vigorous new investment is necessary for lasting benefits from the devaluation, and with the uncertainty surrounding the discounting of wages, the yawning balance of payments gap continues and the external debt mounts up to and will surpass $100 billion. No wonder the markets are less than impressed. What all this clearly underlines is the importance-the imperative necessity-of pushing ahead as the Liberal-National Party coalition assuredly and avowedly will when returned to Government after the next election with the major, indeed historic, changes and reforms to which I referred at the beginning of my speech. These changes will set the foundations for a strong, competitive, humane and secure Australia into the 21st century. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(12.09) —Let there be no doubt that jobs and the local economy in Queanbeyan, the south coast, Cooma and the Snowy Mountains would be on the wane if the Liberal Party were returned to government. That is apart from the inability of successive Liberal governments to deal with strike after strike and ever-increasing Budget deficits. The proposal announced last night by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) to abolish many government departments would slash the local population growth in Queanbeyan, Canberra and Cooma, and would be a minor disaster for tourism and the hospitality industry in the Snowy Mountains, the south coast and Braidwood. It would also reduce Queanbeyan and Canberra usage of the timber industry in the Nimmitabel, Bombala and Eden districts. The Liberal Party's proposed sale of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation would be an economic blow to Cooma, because there would be no way that that Corporation would stay in Cooma if it were privatised. The Liberal promise to abolish the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission would not only increase the incidence of repetition strain injury and other occupational illnesses but also vastly increase the cost to Australia's taxpayers of occupational diseases in our work force. Prevention costs less than cure. Let us keep it that way by supporting the continuation of the Commission. The sale of lucrative parts of Telecom Australia would bump up telephone rents by $300 to $700 if it were to pay its way. Who would it hurt? It would hurt the people in the country areas, because the more lucrative areas for Telecom are the central business districts of our major capital cities. If the Liberal policy of Public Service slashing is accepted-I cannot see how it would be-we shall see the effect of the pre-1983 Howard Budgets, which meant the drastic slashing of public servant numbers in the local area and an increase in numbers in Sydney and Melbourne. The taxpayers lost, as did south-eastern New South Wales. Those areas would lose out again if a Liberal-National Party coalition were in government. I made that brief reference to the effect on the local economy because it would be quite different from the effect on the rest of the Australian economy, with the peculiar-in the sense of different-relationship between south-eastern New South Wales and the national capital. I shall mention briefly some of the Government's health decisions and contrast them with some of the statements by and the record of the previous Government. First of all, in the area of prescriptions, the Government continues in this Budget the provision of free medicine for pensioners. Australia is one of the few countries in the world that supply free medical treatment in the form of pharmaceutical benefits and consultations to pensioners. The Government has also introduced a scheme for general benefits under which there is a charge of $10 for prescriptions. That charge has increased from $5-a doubling in cost-but along with it is a major reform in catastrophe cover. Most people are, like you and me, Mr Deputy Speaker, fairly healthy and will not use more than three or four prescriptions in any year. Catastrophe cover will enable a person to obtain a form from his local chemist. After he has received 25 items, either for his family or for him as an individual, the pharmacist will issue a free entitlement card. The Government will pay the pharmacist $3.50 for the issue of that card. Those patients will have free medicine for the rest of the year. This is a major reform for chronic sufferers and others who in the past have been forced to pay high costs for every item that they receive throughout the year. There have been other very worthwhile reforms. The contraceptive tablet is now available in four-monthly lots instead of two-monthly lots, so people using them are not losing out. For many years diabetics have complained to me that they have had to pay for syringes. From April diabetics will receive free syringes. Expenditure on health promotion, which is grossly underrated, will be up 100 per cent; in other words, it will be doubled. This will definitely be money well spent because prevention is far better than later treatment. That is what will be happening. Contrary to what the Opposition has been saying, Medicare is very far from broke. Our health costs, as a proportion of gross domestic product, compare very favourably with those of the rest of the world. For instance, health costs in the United States of America represent 9.5 per cent of GDP, whereas the costs in Australia are 2 per cent lower at 7.5 per cent. This is because in Australia, with the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, our cost of medication is cheaper. Sometimes we pay a quarter of the price for the same item sold in the United States. Our insurance is not geared for the better off as it is in the United States. In fact, under Medicare 2 million people who were not insured previously are now covered. I would like to make a couple of other points about the local effects of the Budget. Firstly, there will be no cut in pensions. Pension indexation rises of about 4 per cent will take place by mid-December instead of early November. Also, there will be a tightening up of procedures for the payment of the unemployment benefit and, combined with an increase in benefit, this will bring about a net reduction in total payments. In addition, there will be special reviews by teams of officers-the tests will be much harder for New Zealand citizens-and there will be a strong attack on fraud. Once again, members of the Opposition have been very vocal on the need to attack fraud. In this respect, it is unfortunate that they have not agreed to support Government action on the Australia Card. The introduction of the Australia Card, which was endorsed by the House of Representatives, is apparently going to meet with trouble in the Senate where the Australian Democrats, the National Party of Australia and the Liberal Party of Australia are going to combine to reject it. This is regrettable and I believe that it shows the insincerity of members of the Opposition when they call on the Government to reduce further social security fraud. They are not coming up with the wherewithal or the means, unless they are going to contradict their own policy and vastly increase the Australian Public Service and the inspection procedures. Another welcome change in the Budget was the fact that for the rural sector the stud breeders tax will apply only to the horse industry. Previously the proposal included other industries. I was pleased to represent a wide range of stud breeders in the sheep, dairy and beef industries who are very concerned that this tax, which was actually suggested by the bloodstock industry, was not suitable for their industries. I was also grateful to the Cabinet for considering those representations, as it did with the quarantining of farm loss proposals. I commend the Government for using this method of consultation, listening to other people and then acting and reacting if necessary. Subsidy will be withdrawn from imported fertilisers and the rate of subsidy paid on domestic phosphatic fertilisers will be increased according to phosphate content. In addition, soil conservation funds will be increased. I believe it is unfortunate that we are required to increase retail prices of petroleum fuel to a level close to that in other countries. It is unfortunate, particularly in areas such as the far south coast of New South Wales where there is little or no public transport and people will be paying higher prices. Nevertheless, taken in the context of a Budget where we felt it necessary to bring the deficit down to one-third of the deficit we inherited under the previous Government, that sort of action unfortunately had to take place. Some income tax cuts are to commence in December and others will apply from July 1987. These cuts will amount to three times the $1.5 billion received from fringe benefit taxes. The tax free threshold will also be raised from 1 July 1987 and benefits for low income families, the disabled and young homeless persons will increase. Members of the Opposition call, as they usually do, for no growth in wages. That is totally unreasonable when wages, as against the non-farm business product, have actually declined. In the context of family incomes, we need, as we have done in this Budget, to provide for a 2 per cent discounting of wages. In other words, I understand the Government will argue for a small increase in wages before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Members of the Opposition have called for a system of profit sharing by workers, such as that operating in Britain, under which workers would be on much lower awards. But this would lead to the unprecedented stoppages that have occurred in Britain and that we had under the Fraser Government. It would also lead to an unprecedented wage pricing spiral. What do members of the Opposition really want? They want what we see in the United States-they want soup kitchens; they want people sleeping under every bridge instead of the occasional bridge as we have in Australia; they want families of four, five or even six people living in car bodies. I heard recently of one family in Chicago that has lived in a car body for two years. Members of the Opposition want people to push along their entire belongings in shopping trolleys as I saw happen recently in the Beverley Hills district of Los Angeles. Members of the Opposition want the squeeze to be on the poor; the Government wants to spread the squeeze over the entire community. I commend and support the Budget. (Quorum formed) Mr LAMB(Streeton)(12.25) —This Budget, handed down last Tuesday by the Treasurer (Mr Keating), tackles the big task of economic adjustment in the face of international economic pressures. We have had four years of success in managing the domestic economy. We brought it out of the deep recession which was a legacy from the previous Government. I shall just recap some of the successes over the last few years: We have reduced the inflation rate from double digit figures to 7 or 8 per cent. We have reduced the rate of unemployment, which was in excess of 10 per cent under the Fraser Government, to around 7 per cent. We have created 680,000 new jobs. Industrial disputes in this country are at the lowest level for some 19 years. Until very recently economic growth has been of the order of 5 per cent. So we have had an excellent record on the domestic front. But now we find, perhaps for the first time, that we are having to face up to the true relationship between Australia's economy and that of the rest of the world. We have done that. This Government did a very brave thing-something that the Opposition never had the courage to do-floating the dollar so that it would be able to find its true value on international markets. In doing that, it exposed the reality of Australia's position on the international scene for many years. For years we have had an overvalued dollar in Australia. That happened for two reasons. The Opposition when in government has no policies except to retain an overvalued dollar. It used it to hide our economic weaknesses. At the same time, it smashed the basis of out manufacturing industry. The previous Government brought us into recession as a result of that overvalued dollar. Now we have floated the dollar, and the money markets and out international trading relationships have shown us the weakness and the falsity of the previous Government's policy. The successes on our domestic front have been sorely tested recently by the external pressures. I must point out that these are constraints that are not of this Government's making. This Budget recognises that the task before Government is how to face those external pressures. Those pressures are due to the collapse of the commodity markets, which has brought a decline in the prices that we receive for our coal, iron, wheat and our other major exports to the point where, instead of the long term balance of trade deficit of around $8 billion to $10 billion which was usually well covered by capital inflows so that the balance of payments well and truly squared up, the balance of trade deficit is now $13.7 billion. It is the value of the Australian dollar that has affected out external balance, not the domestic management of this economy. It will also affect our capacity to deal with that external imbalance. I want to mention just a couple of things about the response to the readjustment of the value of the Australian dollar. This has brought out the worst in the Opposition and the sceptics. They have focused on this one economic indicator to their own political gain. I point out that the value of the Australian dollar is not a complete barometer of the integrity and the strength of our economy. It is but one indicator in a range of tried, true and trusted indicators. But the Opposition has selected this single item because it hopes to hoodwink the public into thinking that the decline in the value of the Australian dollar means a decline in the economic management of this country. That is totally false and totally wrong. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has admitted publicly that he believes his chances of becoming Prime Minister depend on the falling dollar. He goes around the country saying: `As the dollar falls, I will fall into the job'. I suggest that he will fall into a heap. The failed former Treasurer has done nothing but talk down the economy. He offers no remedies for how Australia can reconstruct. His eyes light up when the Australian dollar falls a percentage point and when Australians wince as a result. He giggles every time some smooth-tongued Ivy Leaguer American speculator comes on the television to repeat the claim that there must be more pain in Australia, that zero growth in government spending is not enough and should be further cut back and that a $3.5 billion deficit, which the Opposition said was unachievable but which scored acclaim around this country, still must be cut back further. He giggles and he is happy when foreigners are telling us how to run our country. It seems to him that democratically elected governments have no place in controlling Australia's welfare. Those who have joined in the Dutch auction on our Budget deficit and who want welfare, health and education programs cut back even more are dancing to the tune of foreign money dealers and would place us hostage to them. This is economic treason and no different from that mentioned in the Parliament the other day when reference was made to that shameful effort by a Western Australian Liberal member of parliament, Mr Lightfoot, who, too, is into bondage and pain. As a means of obtaining power, he wrote to the United States President asking him to keep up his subsidies on sugar and wheat sales. He wants to cripple our farmers so that the Liberal Party of Australia can take the sleazy road to power. That is no different from the economic reason talked by Opposition members who want to see this country ground down economically. The Budget handed down by the Treasurer of this Government is a declaration by this Government that Australia will not be hostage to foreign money markets while this Government is in control. This Government will stay in control because the Australian people are a wake-up to the strategy of the Opposition and its paucity of any remedies to our problems. The failed former Treasurer and the Opposition are irrelevant. I will give some first hand and immediate evidence to support that claim. Anyone around Australia who had their national newspaper in their hands today, whether it was the Sun-News Pictorial, the Age, the Australian Financial Review or the Canberra Times, would have had to go to the minor pages of the paper to find any mention of what the Opposition Leader said about the Budget. Our economic journalists did not consider it worth putting one vestige, one element of his feeble contribution on to the front pages of Australia's national newspapers. Anyone who listened to the radio, to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation programs, would have had to wait until the fifth item in the daily broadcast of the news to hear even what the Leader of the Opposition had said: Does anyone in this Parliament need any more evidence of how irrelevant the Leader of the Opposition is considered to be in the context of having prescriptions to remedy the pressures that Australia is under on the international front. This Budget has been appropriately cast to protect and fortify the gains made over the last three years while still coming to grips with the problems with our balance of trade. That is a tightrope act and I believe that we have the skills to bring about a rectification of our balance of trade problems and still not drive our domestic economy to the wall. The problem facing us is how to reverse our balance of trade situation. Obviously, demand for imports must be curbed in a way that cuts back consumer imports but allows for investment imports which will underpin our future manufacturing base. But at the same time we must avoid digging into and cutting back on employment. We must not increase unemployment. An improved manufacturing base will in turn be better able to provide import replacement consumer items and export oriented value added products. Those two things are essential if we are to reverse the deficit in our balance of commodity trade. The floating of the dollar has seen Australia enjoy an increasingly improving competitive edge. As the Australian dollar falls the opportunities for our manufacturers, our exporters, increase. Yet Opposition members say that a drop in the value of the Australian dollar is wrong for Australia. The dollar is now finding its true value. Let us not argue whether the rate should be five percentage points higher or within that range. The economic realities show that it is good for Australia because there are opportunities for our exports. In addition to floating the dollar, over the last three or four years the Australian Government has built up the domestic strength in the labour force so that full advantage can be taken of that. For instance, our prices and incomes accord-without having a federal power under the Constitution for price control, I admit that it has to be necessarily weak on that side but it represents a strong incomes policy-has resulted in real unit labour costs being reduced by 3 per cent. More importantly, the drop in the number of industrial disputes, which the Opposition always points out costs millions or billions of dollars, has meant that we have been saved that amount of money in our economy. Every time we reduce the number of industrial disputes, the number of person hours lost in our labour force, we increase the productive base, the value of our output and the cake that can be shared by Australian citizens. Equally importantly, we have put on a long term footing a better share of gross domestic product-profitability-into our business sector. There are opportunities that must not be wasted or forgone. It is proper, correct and imperative that the Treasurer's call upon the business sector, having got the pre-conditions for doing so, to invest heavily in this country beheaded. It is not just a matter of saying: `Buy Australian'. It is also a matter of being able to say `Produce Australian' and `Sell Australian'. Not only is this true in the manufacturing sector, but the devaluation of the dollar has given a great opportunity to build up our tourism industry. Furthermore, because this Budget has reduced the public sector borrowing requirement to zero, we have provided the opportunity, without competition, of leaving the banking field and the borrowing field open for business. This is their big opportunity. The Government has said: ``We have provided the pre-conditions. It is now up to business to stand by Australia. Stop whingeing about the fact that tax equity has been restored to the tax base'. I could quote an editorial from the Australian Financial Review of a week or so ago which called on business to stop whingeing about the fringe benefits tax and capital gains tax. These are not problems for industry. To seek to restore inequity to the taxation base is not the same thing as an incentive. That is where the Opposition's argument falls down. Opposition members feel that tax cheating on the rest of the community, not paying one's proper, fair share of tax, is an incentive. This Government in this Budget and over the past four years, with the advantage of the falling dollar reaching its truer level, provides the environment at the true incentive for manufacturers to get up and produce. The consumers as a result of the Budget have been asked to take a cut in their immediate standards of living. They are being asked to cut back on consumption so that we can build for tomorrow. There is no way that we can keep consuming at the rate we have without the income to perpetuate that consumption. The fact is that on international trading account the income is not there and we have to cut back. We have to save, build up our base so that we can live properly for tomorrow. Self-denial has been spread equitably. As the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles) said, there have been no cuts to pensions. There has been a six-week delay in their full indexation increase, but I repeat that there has been no reduction or cut in pensions. Recently I had a telephone call from a pensioner who said: `What is all the fuss about pensioners having to take a small cut? I am prepared to do it, and now I see in the Budget that the contribution over the whole year will be $27 per pensioner forgone on the full rate when pensioners do get indexation'. That is the maximum that is being asked of any pensioner-$27. That seems to me to be equitable when one considers that the wage and salary earners with families are being asked to forgo 2 per cent of their expected indexation increase. The big cuts to welfare have not occurred. All the speculation, all the doom and gloom, have not come to pass. On the other hand, there have been increases in income support programs to families with young children, to those most in need. Let it not be said that this Government has turned on the traditional values of a Labor government. Let it not be said that Labor has made the most needy suffer the greatest burden. This Budget has the full stamp of equity in restraint. Those who have to cut their consumption have been asked to forgo their luxury motorcars, and they will. I consider it not only equitable and right that cars over $30,000-nearly always imported-will have a sales tax increase by 10 per cent to 30 per cent. This will give a boost to the local car industry. Apart from the competitive advantage as a result of the devaluation of the Australian dollar, one will see that with the distinction between a car for the ordinary family and a luxury motorcar there will be a boost in Australian production. That will mean secure employment for the wage and salary earners in the car industry to be able to bring up their families. The tax reforms now flowing through will share the burden of taxation. The tax cuts will go ahead. Labor will honour its promise to lower marginal rates of income tax. They will be delayed for a few months. Therefore we have asked ordinary wage and salary earners to share their restraint in consumption and their burden to restore Australia's competitive position and rectify our balance of trade. More properly, the top cuts, the cuts in respect of higher salary earners, will have to wait until July next year. That is not a change. It is just to re-emphasise that there has been total equity in restraint on spending. But the Opposition, if it were to be believed, would reverse that tax reform. Opposition members boast and brag in this House that they would repeal the fringe benefits tax, a tax that has done more than anything to restore equity. I see no difference in a person's liability to tax if he gets benefits in cash or in kind. Mr Cadman —But the boss pays. Mr LAMB —The boss already takes out the income tax from the employee before he gets it. There is hardly any difference in administration and the principles behind a fringe benefits tax being paid and the employee getting a benefit measured in before-tax terms. I would point out, as I did in a speech on the fringe benefits tax, that the reason that some taxes have been avoided for 40 years has been through collusion between employers and top-paid employees. They have colluded to refrain from declaring on the income and salary statements of the employee the value of those benefits. Let us not have any statements and claims that the employers are being hard hit. They have benefited for years out of this in their collusive dealings to avoid paying into the community proper taxation payments. The Opposition seeks to abolish capital gains tax and would end the tax on lump sum superannuation which prevented double dipping and two bites at the welfare cherry. If all those promises were to be honoured, how would the Opposition reduce marginal rates of income tax? Let us remember that the tax reform which went through this Parliament in the last Budget, and which has been carried to fruition over the sessions leading up to this new Budget, has been a package. Each and every separate part of that package must be seen in relation to the others. The total tax collection in that package did not increase. There have been some minor changes which have increased the taxation take in this Budget, and we have crept one or two percentage points over our promise about the trilogy. I make no excuse for that. I do not think we should apologise. These are desperate times and we must beat our balance of payments problems. But no, the Leader of the Opposition wants to try to con the public-John the con is the expression by which he is now known. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(12.45) —Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It being 12.45 p.m. the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the honourable member for Lyne will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Sitting suspended from 12.45 until 2 p.m. Mr HUNT —My question is to the Minister for Primary Industry, but I do not see him here today. I will direct this question to the Prime Minister and perhaps he could direct it to whomever he thinks might answer it. In view of the fact that 40 per cent of fertiliser used by farmers is imported, does the Prime Minister agree that the transfer of bounties from imported to domestic fertilisers will undermine the domestic competition, thereby costing farmers millions of dollars? Why has the Government taken this action in view of the Industries Assistance Commission's advice that any rise in the price of imported fertiliser would raise fertiliser costs generally, including domestic prices? Was the decision based on the advice of the Department of Primary Industry? How does this costly Budget decision, which is affecting farmers, tally with the Government's claims that the actions of other countries are to blame for the farmers' cost price squeeze in our economic crisis? Mr HAWKE —I always welcome questions from the Deputy Leader of the National Party because frankly and consistently I acknowledge the very constructive approach that he adopts in these matters. I take this opportunity to say to him-as I have by correspondence-how grateful I am for the part he played with us in the representations to the United States. That is said with total sincerity. Obviously I would prefer that my Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, should subsequently handle this matter in more detail. It is an important matter to which considerable consideration was given in the formulation of the Budget. The reason why the Minister is not here is that I am given to understand that he is in Deniliquin talking to rice growers, so he is about his duty. My brief reply to the question is that we believe the farmers of this country have consistently taken the view that it is appropriate that in Australia we should pay the actual prices of international commodities and that there should not be any artificial interference with those prices. That is what we have done. We could not regard it as appropriate to continue a subsidy on the prices of imports. In our consideration of this matter we attempted to take account of the interests of farmers in relation to superphosphate. We know the importance of this commodity to them. I make a point in relation to prices generally, and I think the honourable member for Gwydir would accept this: When we came to office the growth in farm costs was of the order of 11 per cent annually. We reduced that growth from the 11 per cent that we inherited to 5 per cent last year. The assessment of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, on which the Opposition relies when it suits it, is that in the forthcoming year that growth will be down to the order of 3 per cent. I will ask the Minister for Primary Industry to provide a more detailed answer to the honourable member for Gwydir. Mr LAMB —My question is to the Prime Minister. In the course of his Budget reply last night, the Leader of the Opposition, in making comparisons between the policy of the Labor Government and the hypothetical coalition government, said that the Prime Minister must think that the Australian disease is amnesia. Will the Prime Minister comment on the economic performance of the Government in the light of the Opposition Leader's alternative policy proposals? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for his question. Indeed, last night in one of the most pathetic responses of any Leader of the Opposition to a Budget, the Leader of the Opposition said, as one of his many gems, that I must think that the Australian disease is amnesia. Fortunately, not all people suffer from amnesia, certainly not the convenient amnesia of the Leader of the Opposition. Very particularly, there is an important member of the Liberal Party of Australia who is currently not suffering from amnesia. I refer to something that is in a speech that will be delivered tonight by a member of the Liberal Party, a member of a former Liberal government. The speech has already been widely distributed and no doubt it will be widely reported after it is delivered tonight. I refer to a speech that will be delivered tonight by John Hyde to a branch of the Liberal Party in Western Australia. He should know what happened under the previous Government and he has been watching what has happened under this Government. What does he have to say? I share his view with honourable members. After making some criticisms of us he says in summary: I now think that on balance the Hawke Labor Government has governed better than we governed. There is no amnesia there. Just to rub it in, having said that on balance we are governing better than the Opposition governed, Mr Hyde summed it up with this: . . . certainly better than we governed in our last 12 months. There is no amnesia from Mr Hyde, and he is dead right. One would contrast the candour of that Western Australian with the pathetic performance of Mr Lightfoot. I wonder whether honourable members have noticed what has happened there. The Leader of the Opposition has got on to Mr Hassell and said: `Look, somehow you have to cover up this statement by a Liberal member of parliament that we want Australia to suffer.' So Mr Lightfoot under pressure wrote a letter, in which he said `Oh well, with the benefit of hindsight I really would not have said that', but the most revealing thing in his letter of contrition is this: `It was never intended for publication'. Is that not marvellous? Let us have a look at this selective, self serving, unprincipled political chameleon who is the Leader of the Opposition. He is the convenient amnesiac of Australian politics. No wonder we never hear any more about that self-bestowed title of `Honest John'. How long is it since honourable members have heard that? It is no wonder. Let us have a look at what he said in his speech. We will see what his amnesia is like. I shall select three or four items. First, let us take tax and see what he had to say about that. In his speech he said: Australia's taxation system must be radically reformed and simplified. There must be a substantial reduction in the marginal tax rates which have such a distinctive effect. What did he leave as a top marginal rate when he was kicked out of office in March 1983? His legacy for the top marginal tax rate was 60c in the dollar. He had had seven and a half years in government, five years as Treasurer, to leave his mark on the marginal tax rate, but he walked out of office with that rate at 60c. Why was it at 60c? Because under his stewardship the income tax base of this country had been eroded. Why had it been eroded? Because he allowed the lurks and the perks and the avoiders to flourish. More and more burdens were imposed upon the ordinary, average Australian. That is why he walked out of office with a marginal tax rate of 60c in the dollar. Why will we be bringing in 49c in the dollar on 1 July next year? It is because we are taking away the lurks and perks. Why have we brought in a capital gains tax? Did honourable members opposite read in the Business Review Weekly last week about the 200 top income earners in Australia? What is basically the only way in which the ordinary Australian will be able to get some contribution from those people to the common revenue? It will be through this Government bringing in a capital gains tax. Because we have done that we will be able to collect revenue which will enable us to bring down the Howard 60c rate to 49c. Faced with this, what is the Leader of the Opposition going to do? He is going to take the capital gains tax and the fringe benefits tax away. He will give the benefits back to the 200 wealthiest people in the country and get no contribution from them. What will he do in those circumstances? He will bring in a more broadly based consumption tax, putting a greater burden on the poorest-those least able to bear it-so that he can give the benefits back to the wealthiest. He talks about tax! Let us look next at what he had to say about inflation. On page 2 of his speech he said: This year, Australia's inflation rate will be at least 8 per cent. What was the inflation rate that he left to this country? He left an inflation rate of 11.4 per cent. That is the difference. Mr Nehl —It is more than enough. Mr HAWKE —Of course it is more than enough. Honourable members opposite do not like the truth. What about unemployment? The Leader of the Opposition has had the temerity to talk about unemployment. What did he deliver in this last 12 months? 250,000 jobs disappeared and we had double digit unemployment, yet he talks about that. What does he have to say about industrial relations? He talks about improving industrial relations. What are the facts? What is the record of the previous Government's period in office? Under the Leader of the Opposition the monthly average of days lost due to industrial disputes was 248,000. That number has been reduced under this Government by more than half, to 114,000. The level of industrial disputes under the former Government was 117 per cent higher than under this Government. Let me conclude by saying that this temporary Leader of the Opposition-no wonder Andrew is smiling-the man whom this bloke told to be honest, this amnesiac, may fool some of his people but he will not fool the people of Australia, because when full memory is brought to bear they will make the same judgment that Mr Hyde has; that this Government is a significantly better government than anything honourable members opposite ever produced or ever could produce. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Treasurer to page 263 of the Budget Paper No. 1 and to the estimated 6.5 per cent or $640m increase in total outlays on public debt interest. Given that this is the lowest increase in at least the past seven years, can the Treasurer tell the House of the specific-I stress the word `specific'-interest rate and exchange rate assumptions on which the estimate has been based? Mr KEATING —I could not give the House that information off the top of my head but I will be quite happy to provide it. Obviously we have been arresting the increase in public debt by the Budgets we have been bringing down for three years now. The disastrous fiscal inheritance left to us by the former Government-the $9 billion deficit in prospect in 1983-84-has been reduced progressively to this figure of $3.5 billion in prospect, which is a dramatic decline in the acceleration of the Commonwealth debt obligations. It is the quantum decline in that debt which will principally diminish the growth of public debt interest in the course of the year. That is the basic assumption. As we made clear in the Budget Speech, there will be no new net raisings of treasury bonds in the course of the year. Essentially, what we will be doing is funding the roll-over program from years past. Of course, there will be some net issues of treasury notes but, by and large, this Government has brought the Commonwealth Budget deficit back to the level of the late 1950s and 1960s. I observe that, in terms of bringing down the public sector borrowing requirements from 6 per cent last year, or from 8 per cent when this Government was sworn in, as a result of the former Government's policies, to a prospective 4.4 per cent this year, the great growth in State sector authorities borrowings happened when the former Treasurer and the former Prime Minister let the genie out of the bottle with their so-called infrastructure program. The result is that the burden of bringing the public sector borrowing requirement down has been essentially a burden on the Commonwealth, because the State sector's capacity, in terms of its own recurrent budgets, to effect the aggregate borrowings of State authorities programs, is a fairly modest capacity. Therefore, the great burden of bringing down the PSBR has fallen on the Commonwealth Government and it is this Government which has tried to relieve pressures on Australian savings. Instead of having the Commonwealth Government and the States sucking up Australian savings and putting a high and very onerous burden on Australian savings, we have brought it down. It is that fiscal responsibility-none of which was displayed last evening in the Leader of the Opposition's reply to the Budget-which is curtailing the growth in public debt interest. While I could dredge up all the assumptions, it is the basic cut in the quantity of debt which is responsible for the modest growth assumed this year. Mr GAYLER —I address my question to the Minister for Primary Industry, who has just returned from Deniliquin where he has been speaking with the men on the land and dispensing his duties. Is the Minister aware that the Leader of the Opposition last night announced that he has repudiated the National Party of Australia promise to reinstate in full the fuel freight subsidy scheme and, more particularly, establish a floor price for sugar of $240 a tonne and abolish export inspection charges? Will the Minister be seeking to explain to farm groups, especially those in far north Queensland, the implications of the Government's policies in these areas? Mr KERIN —As Minister returned from Deniliquin, I am very happy to answer the question. The honourable member for Leichhardt, of course, is very interested in the sugar industry. What we had last night may be a partial end to the old coalition trick of telling one thing in the board rooms and telling another thing in the bush. Members of the National Party have been racing around the country. I believe that one of them has returned. The right honourable gentleman would be one of the worst offenders. Members of the National Party have been running around the bush and saying that they are going to do all sorts of great things when they are re-elected to office. Of course, there has been a basic lack of credibility in all that. What the Leader of the Opposition announced last night amounts to a repudiation of $345m worth of the National Party's promises. I could not quite understand why honourable members opposite were cheering him on. Perhaps they are all committed now. That means that they are committed to their own duplicity, because they have been saying that they will restore fuel freight equalisation, that they will immediately put $100m into rural reconstruction, that they will subsidise the floor price of sugar up to $240 a tonne and that they will abolish export inspection charges. Although the Leader of the Opposition does not have a clue as to what to do about Australia's current balance of trade problems-honourable members opposite simply will not focus on it-at least he has been a little honest in saying that we cannot afford to make all these glittering promises. He has ended the duplicity of the National Party to that degree. The honourable member for Leichhardt asked me to elucidate on the Government's policy in terms of the fuel freight equalisation scheme. Of course we will be explaining that. There is still a 5.2c subsidy. Any freight charge over that is still met by the Government. We have directed the savings in that area straight into the distillate subsidy for on-farm use. That represents a gain to the farmers of between $200m and $300m. The previous promise by the Opposition of assistance to the sugar industry, which it has now repudiated, would have cost about $55m for the 1985 crop. This Government, instead of taking these ad hoc panic measures that were promised and repudiated by the National Party, has put together a package for the sugar industry of $100m which goes to the levels of price support, farm adjustment and mill adjustment. We have put that together with the two governments concerned. An unequivocal promise has been made for the three-year package, and the first evidence of that was in the Budget statement presented on Tuesday night. Finally, to focus on the export inspection matter, we have achieved amazing things in the Export Inspection Service. Potential savings can still be made there. If the National Party would simply give up in the upper House in Victoria we could finally take over the Victorian service and that would be another saving to industry of $10m. That is more evidence of National Party duplicity which says one thing in the bush but is not prepared to give savings to the industry. The cost this year is estimated by Treasury at $117m and industry will pay about $54m. What the Opposition has now repudiated is a promise of something like another $55m to the industry. In relation to the efficiencies this Government is achieving, we have saved 341 positions. We are moving to fee for service. The increases were very minor and were all well below the increase in the consumer price index. The major one concerning meat involved only a very small increase. That result was due to the policies of this Government of getting maximum efficiency out of that service. When we make promises we stick to them. We will not repudiate them and we will not indulge in cheap vote buying. Honourable members opposite belong to a coalition that cannot deliver, will not deliver and never will deliver. Madam SPEAKER —Order! As I reported to the House when it met today, my attention has been drawn to remarks in the Canberra Times attributed to the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) which are critical of the Speaker. If the remarks were made as reported and if they are verified by the right honourable gentleman, I ask the right honourable gentleman to withdraw the allegations and imputations contained in the statement and apologise to the Chair. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —Madam Speaker, the remarks were not meant to be about you but about Parliament, about the occasional misbehaviour of miscreants such as myself and the fact that I did not believe that Parliament was a suitable repository for documents containing allegations that are unresolved by legal commissioners. I therefore withdraw those remarks and apologise, for they were in no way directed against you or the office you hold. Madam SPEAKER —I thank the right honourable gentleman. Mr RUDDOCK —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. In view of the Prime Minister's statement that at least anomalies and administrative difficulties with the fringe benefits tax legislation will be examined, when can we anticipate further advice on proposed alterations to take into account such anomalies that have emerged, in particular the situation of State Emergency Services volunteers in New South Wales? Mr KEATING —The Prime Minister is being misquoted by the honourable member for Dundas. He may not be misquoting him intentionally, but he is misquoting him. The Prime Minister made clear that in the course of the administration of this tax, of course, if there are administrative improvements which can be made, no tax administration would be sensible if it did not make them. In terms of what the honourable member for Dundas sought to describe as anomalies-that is, changes in the design or alleged defects requiring changes in the design-there is no such statement from the Prime Minister or me. The tax stands and-- Mr N.A. Brown —Would you rather lose the election? Mr KEATING —No, we would rather make the tax system fair. That is what the Opposition does not seem to understand. The Opposition thinks it is a case of rorts all round for the people it represents. The question of the State Emergency Services was a total furphy because this is a tax on non-cash benefits. Anything by way of a cash benefit does not come within the purview of this tax at all. I would have thought that would have been understood by everybody. The interjections from the other side are very interesting because last night we heard the Leader of the Opposition talk about a deficit outcome of $3.5 billion. The difference is in the distribution of the burden. That is where he is at difference. He is not at difference about the $3.5 billion but about the distribution of the burden. The Leader of the Opposition is saying: `We will go back to rorting and ramping. We will go back to capitalising your income. We will let you get $500,000 lump sums free of tax. We will let you pocket a lower marginal rate on the way through, but if you happen to have an unemployed kid at home we will knock off his unemployment benefit and who knows what else for the bottom three-quarters of Australians'. That is really what the Liberal Party stands for. The Opposition is not saying that the Government's budgetary strategy of $3.5 billion is wrong; it is haggling about the distribution. The Opposition will let back in the ramps and rorts of fringe benefits. It will let all the ramps of the tax system return. It will let people capitalise their income gains and not pay tax. People can have a lump sum of $500,000 tax free at the taxpayers' expense. Yet the Opposition expects to be taken seriously by people who want to see fairness in this country. Every question we have had in respect of entertainment, lump sum benefits and capital gains goes back to the fact that the Opposition has no semblance of fairness in it. The Opposition is only about protecting people of privilege on very high incomes. That is all it has ever been about, yet it tries to shamble around and masquerade as though it is a party of decency, interested in families and all the rest of it. The fact of the matter is that the Opposition is the same as it always has been. It will protect the ramps and rorts which it built into the tax system and it will do its best to put them back. Dr THEOPHANOUS —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. What is the Budget's impact on multiculturalism? Has the Government in any way altered its commitment to multicultural values? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for Calwell for his question as it is an important issue. The Government, through the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and, on this occasion, through me, commits itself un- equivocally to enhancing multicultural values. Let us look quickly at what multiculturalism is. It is essentially the equality of opportunity and equality of treatment for everyone in this country from whatever cultural background they come. We are proud that people have come from some 140 different countries to this land of many cultures. We are no longer simply a reflection of any one country or culture. We have our own developing different Australian identity and everyone can feel equally part of it, whatever their background. Equality of opportunity and treatment are basic to the values of this Government. People from non-English speaking backgrounds in particular need settlement help. They have to make a language adjustment when they come to this country. They need advice from social and welfare workers to assist them in making adjustments and this Labor Government has improved all these programs which especially help people of non-English speaking backgrounds individually at the grass roots. Against that statement of principle and commitment, let me quickly address each one of the decisions we have made in the Budget which have led some people who should know better to question this commitment. Before I go to those points, let me make this point: The Leader of the Opposition has not repudiated or rejected any of the expenditure restraint decisions we have made. All he has said is that the Opposition would do more in certain areas. So there is no repudiation by the Opposition of the decisions we have taken. First of all, I remind the Leader of the Opposition that although the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs in Melbourne is being phased out a new Office of Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs is being created within the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Of course, some people would have considered it nice to have both, but every sector had to make sacrifices. Of the two bodies, the Office of Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs will be much more effective, not just cost effective, in promoting multicultural values. The Office will be located in Canberra. Frankly, the Institute, although vastly improved by us over the past year, had found the job of making an impact on Australia and in society an impossible one. It would seem to be of Melbourne but not for all Australia. The merging of the Special Broadcasting Service and the Australian Broadcasting Commission will have two major results. It will give security at last to our unique multicultural radio and television. The SBS will influence that other arm of operations, the ABC, into realising that we are no longer just an Anglo-Celt culture. The former insecurity of the SBS was worrying. I shall address myself to the education of our kids, our children of non-English speaking background. I am bound to remind honourable members that the education of our young is basically a State responsibility, and the States guard it jealously. The Commonwealth programs, as you would appreciate, Madam Speaker, have largely been seed programs and have prodded the States into directions which were being neglected. With that as the background, let me state that our ethnic schools program has been maintained. We cannot promise growth this year-the 20 per cent growth of the past two years could not continue. The multicultural studies program was small and fragmented. It has sown its seed and it must be absorbed into Australian studies. At the Commonwealth level we shall use all our influence for that to be done, which is the way in which multicultural values should be taught. English as a second language-that is, the ESL program for non-English speaking children-has recently arrived. It is being maintained as before. Mr Cadman —It has been halved. Mr HAWKE —The honourable gentleman says that it has been halved. I remind him that the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable gentleman's Leader for the time being, has endorsed what we have done. If the honourable gentleman has any attack to make upon that, let him attack his Leader. English as a second language, in the form of supplementary teaching of English to children who have been here for some time, must be taken on by the States as a basic part of our education system. Here, too, we have sown the seeds. We are still contributing specific help to the extent of the large sum of $34m in 1987. General grants to the States for education have increased and resource agreements will establish the priorities. Teaching all children to be proficient in English must be subject to those resource agreements. The report on the quality of education by Professor Karmel questioned the effectiveness of the existing ESL program. We hope that these changes will lead to improvements. The long-awaited national language policy is almost finalised, and funds here have been allocated in the Budget for its implementation. It is crystal clear that we have a continuing commitment to multicultural values. At the grass roots, where it matters, Labor is putting into effect increased efforts. At a time of stringency we are nevertheless increasing the resources for the teaching of English to adults through our Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs adult migration program. We have more grants-in-aid to finance social workers for ethnic communities to aid the settlement of their people. The Government's commitment to multicultural Australia is stronger than ever. I repeat that the decisions that we have had to take for economic purposes have been endorsed and not repudiated by the Opposition. Mr COWAN —I address my question to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I refer to the Government's decision to close the Newcastle office of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. In coming to this decision, did the Minister consider the great importance of that office in terms of convenience and the saving of expensive travel for the people in the north and north-west of New South Wales? Did he consider also that the office services well in excess of one million people and is most important to Newcastle and the north of the State? In view of the grave local concern and the concern of all those in the north of the State, will the Minister reconsider his decision and leave this important office available to the people of the area? Mr HURFORD —I have considered all the points put to me in the question of the honourable member for Lyne. In streamlining the administration of my Department at a time when this was vital, I have had to take some tough decisions not only about the regional office in Newcastle but about five other regional offices. I did not enjoy taking the decision on the Newcastle office, but it was taken in the interests of efficiency. I must point out to the honourable member that it is utter hypocrisy for any Opposition member to criticise such a decision, particularly in view of the sort of speech that we had from the Leader of the Opposition last night, when he suggested that the cuts that have taken place to date should have been greater. I have reviewed this tough decision because I have received many representations in the Caucus from very active members on my own side. I know that they have concerns in Wollongong, Geelong and Albury-Wodonga as well. I have those concerns too. However, I am confident that my decision is the correct one. I am quite confident that, for instance, there is not a reason why these centres should have regional offices when Bathurst, Bendigo and Ballarat do not have them. We are not able to have regional offices everywhere or in all places where we would like to have them. I am confident, however, that we shall be giving the service from the central offices that we have. These are services that are second to none in the administrative refinements that we have made. I say again to the honourable member for Lyne that I understand the concerns. I regret the decision, but it has been taken in the interests of effective administration. Mr GORMAN —Is the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware of calls for a wage freeze? Could the Minister tell the Parliament how such an outcome could be achieved through a system of decentralised wage fixing? Mr WILLIS —I am aware of calls by the Leader of the Opposition for the Government to implement a wage freeze. The honourable gentleman made that call in his speech when replying to the Budget last night. Subsequent to that he elaborated on the matter when he was interviewed on the Carleton-Walsh Report. He said then that he would not seek to impose a wage freeze if he were in government. He said: I'm advocating a wage freeze in the context of us having a centralised system at the present time. I mean, I'm saying to the government . . . you try and get a wage freeze, I mean you want a centralised system. You make that centralised system work and deliver a wage freeze. Obviously if we were in power and we started to change towards a less regulated system, then the parameters in which we'd operate would be different. In other words, he is saying that the Government should implement a wage freeze, but if he were in government he would not pursue one. He would not pursue one because he supports a deregulated wages system, which would mean that he could not implement a wage freeze. What an absurd situation the Opposition is in. It is saying to the nation-it did so in the speech that was delivered on television last night-that what this country needs is a wage freeze. The Leader of the Opposition gets on television after that speech and says: `But if I were the Prime Minister of this country, you would not have one because we would have a deregulated wages system'. What a ridiculous policy that is. What an absurd wages policy that is for the Opposition to portray to the nation as some sort of responsible response to the Government's Budget. This question is also raised: What would be the outcome of a deregulated wages system? There is every reason to believe that such a system would result in much higher wage outcomes than those presently occurring and it should be realised that these are producing a reduction in real wages, and that we have had these reductions over the past three years. That is not something which has been easily obtained, but it has been obtained in a consensus arrangement with the trade union movement. It defies the imagination of anyone to believe that that could have been achieved by any other system, with concurrent strong employment growth. Let us look back at our history. In 1981 and 1982 we saw what happened when a centralised system ended and there was open slather. We had a 16.5 per cent wage increase in 1982 when our trading partners had 6.5 per cent. If we look at other countries and draw comparisons that are based on their experience, we should consider countries which have similar union situations, in the sense of the proportion of the work force in unions and with similar union structures. The obvious countries to look at are New Zealand and the United Kingdom. If one looks at what is happening there, one sees that New Zealand wages increased last year by 12 1/2 per cent, the United Kingdom by 7 1/2 per cent and Australia by just over 6 per cent. So with the deregulated wages system operating in these countries with similar union structures, higher wages outcomes occur than in Australia with a centralised system applying. All that is happening in the United Kingdom with a 13 per cent unemployment rate. I think it should be understood that, in the United Kingdom, a resort to increased unemployment to control wages has still resulted in strong increases in real wages, and that is a matter which the Thatcher Government is simply incapable of controlling. When I was in the United Kingdom a couple of months ago I spoke with the Secretary of State for Employment, Lord Young, about this particular problem of the growth in wages in the United Kingdom and Lord Young agreed that the United Kingdom had a great problem with the continuing high real wage growth, despite strong unemployment. When I asked him what his Government was doing about it he said: `We are making speeches'. That is all that the Opposition would be doing if it was in government operating a deregulated wages system and trying to control the wage outcome. Honourable members opposite would be standing here saying how irresponsible the unions were, making great passionate anti-union speeches, and watching wages go through the roof. That would be the outcome. There is no doubt that the absurdity of a deregulated flexible system that the Opposition is portraying would result in a much worse wage outcome than we have had in this country. We do not need a wage freeze in this country. We do not need, either, a flexible wages blow-out. What we need in this country are responsible wage outcomes of the kind that we have been getting, which have enabled us to have a strong growth in the economy for three years, and which are assisting now to get us through the period of strong adjustment that we need to go through because of the balance of payments situation. That is the wages system which is appropriate to this country and it will continue to produce the goods. Mr DRUMMOND —The Minister for Primary Industry would be aware that his Department will spend $5.3m on a vine-pull scheme for wine grapes this year. The Government in this Budget has imposed a 20 per cent sales tax on wine which may force many more producers into the vine-pull scheme. Does he not agree that there is some inconsistency with a government that pays people to get out of an industry but at the same time taxes people out of that same industry? Mr KERIN —I would be amazed if for once the Opposition did not come up with the most simplistic case put to it on any industry matter by the industry lobby. I would be absolutely amazed if it came up with any original or lateral thinking on any issue of agricultural policy. Mr Hodgman —Stop whining. Mr KERIN —Oh, here we are-the last of the `babble-onians'. If the honourable member had some understanding of the wine industry he would realise that it is not the least bit inconsistent to have a vine-pull scheme at the same time as some measure of taxation is being levied on this industry. The simple fact is that the biggest problem for the industry is always the potential wine lake which comes from the multi-purpose grape growing areas. The second major problem for the wine industry in terms of the grape growers, whom I take it the honourable member is representing, as well as wine makers, is the fact that we have a structure of farms in the irrigation areas that goes back to the size of blocks in farmer settlement schemes. The problems of reconstruction in those areas are very difficult indeed. That is why there is no inconsistency. I understand that there is quite a bit of concern about two items that affect my portfolio, even though I suppose, technically, they relate to taxation matters and therefore to the Treasurer's responsibility. But I am sure he would say, as I do, that the big problem in the wine industry is really overproduction and the industry's structure. One of the ways out of this, given that we have a massive devaluation, is for there to be more exports. Mr Peter Fisher —What about imports? Mr KERIN —But the big problem there is that the industry is failing to get its act together and we have had a great brawl within the industry whereby the major producers of wine have been trying to defeat efforts by smaller premium wine makers to get more heavily into the business of export promotion. We are making some breakthroughs on wine exports, but there is enormous potential there. An honourable gentleman interjected and asked: `What about imports?' Here again, I must say, there is a fair amount of frustration in getting this industry to get its act together. We have been trying to get uniform food Acts so that we can at least look at the imports of wine which does meet our standards, because in terms of doing unto others as they do unto us, the Europeans take us to the cleaners. But, of course, one cannot get all the States to agree. My colleague the Minister for Health has been trying to get uniform food Acts, and due to his assiduous approach to this task we are now some way towards getting some resolution of a uniform food Act among the States so that we can look at this aspect of imports. But lo and behold, when one looks at that matter in a bit more detail, when one starts to look at the standards for our Australian wine, again we find that the industry has not got its own act together. I could talk a lot more about citrus products and a few other products that are affected by exports and imports as well, but I will not take the time of the House, except to say that in respect of the citrus industry I do not think that the 10 per cent tax will have any effect in terms of consumption beyond the existing problem. One thing I failed to mention on exports is that there is potential for exports of sultanas and Thompson seedless grapes, and if we can work and get our act together we will remove some of that potential wine lake. Yesterday I had in my office some exporters from the citrus industry who said that they simply could not get the amount of quality fruit that they wanted. That is not necessarily a criticism of the industry. It will take time to get its act together. But the industry is selling citrus products; one can get prices of about $280 a tonne for it while producers are lucky to get $80 a tonne at present. The delegation put to me that the black spots in the area were packing, growing and the problem of shipping. The problem of shipping is something which the Minister for Transport and I are addressing, but it does not simply involve blaming the unions for the problems of shipping; the problem relates to the fact that we are ineffective at co-ordination and delivery and that we are always seeking to blame other people when, with a bit of work, we could do a lot to take advantage of the devaluation and help these industries out rather than bleating with some simplistic argument. Mr DUBOIS —Can the Treasurer advise the House how the Federal Government's Budget would have been affected were the proposals put forward by the Leader of the Opposition last night to be adopted by the Government? Mr KEATING —It would have a disastrous impact on fiscal policy because rarely has the Parliament been treated to a sleight of hand like it was treated to last night by the Leader of the Opposition in suggesting that he had cut back his spending promises. What he really did say was that he would not cut back his receipts and taxation promises. He used a throw-away line like that in a speech which junks promises, and he has been currying favour around the countryside particularly with members of the National Party of Australia. He has made promises which he has no intention of keeping. He made massive promises on the receipts side, which he did not mention in his speech and which he does not attempt to reconcile in his adoption of an alternative fiscal policy. It is almost unbelievable. That somebody who has held the position of Treasurer of this country can make the traditional reply speech of the Leader of the Opposition to the Budget yet have an $11 billion credibility problem in terms of commitments on the receipts side of the Commonwealth ledger and not refer to them, not try to reconcile this position with the Commonwealth Government's position, and not try to say how fiscal policy would be under a coalition administration, is simply to treat the Parliament foolishly and the public even more so. The credibility which the Leader of the Opposition had yesterday he still has today. Let me recount for a second the commitments which stand on receipts in respect of the Opposition's approach: Institute income splitting, $2.7 billion; a flatter tax system by dropping the 49c rate to a 40c rate for companies and individuals from 1 July 1987, $1.6 billion; abolish the fringe benefits tax, $325m; abolish the capital gains tax, $5m; abolish the tax on lump sum superannuation, $80m; reinstitute entertainment expenses, $310m; reinstitute negative gearing, $50m; full flow-on of world oil price reductions, $400m; abolish the sales tax on oils and lubricants, $66m; abolish the tax on new oil, $165m; provide child care rebates, $108m; restore income equalisation deposits and in-out tax averaging $23m; and abolish the wine tax, $107m. That makes a total of $5.9 billion. The Leader of the Opposition says that he would bring the Budget deficit to zero, not by lifting receipts but by reducing receipts, but he would still have to fund the following commitments: The abolition of the assets test, which would cost $150m; the wage freeze which he says he will have, which would cost $400m; and opting out of Medicare-that is, the healthy can opt out, leaving the sick and the pensioners behind-which would cost $900m. The $3.5 billion of the deficit, the $5.9 billion of the tax receipts, letting people opt out of Medicare, abolishing the assets test and a wage freeze comes to $11 billion, yet no attempt was made by the Opposition to try to reconcile these statements. I notice that whenever some hard data is thrown at the Opposition one of the Leader of the Opposition's deputies springs to attention to have a conversation. This is one of the Opposition's techniques. The reason for this is that the Leader of the Opposition has no heart for any hard message. He has a heart like a split pea. One of the reasons why he could get nothing through the Cabinet between 1977 and 1982 was that caraway seed that ticks over in his chest, the same one in evidence now, which makes him turn his back whenever a hard answer is directed towards him. The hard answer is that he has a $5.9 billion credibility gap on tax, a $3.5 billion credibility gap on the deficit and an $11 billion credibility gap in total, none of which he mentioned last night in his speech as Leader of the Opposition. The contemptible speech even contained clauses and sentences cut straight out from other speeches over the last few weeks. The speech was put together on the run by an Opposition on the run. But this was the new Opposition that was going to come back invigorated from the Liberal Party Council meeting and do the Government over. Let me say at the end of the first week that if that is the medicine the Government is going to get, the Opposition will be there for a long time. The Opposition can try to kid the people by saying that it will cut this, that and something else out, but, as my colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations said, while the Opposition keep up antics such as saying to the Government, `You have had a wage freeze, but we will not have one', it will stay right where it belongs-firmly rooted in opposition. Madam SPEAKER —Yesterday, the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) raised matters relating to the presence of police in Parliament House on Tuesday evening. I advise honourable members that, under the authority of the Parliament vested in the Presiding Officers, police may enter Parliament House only with the consent of the Presiding Officers. Each situation requiring police assistance is assessed by the President and me on the advice of our officers. On Tuesday evening advice was received that a large demonstration in support of low-cost housing would take place in King's Hall during the Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Keating). The advice was that demonstrators intended to rush the King's Hall doors and occupy the chamber during the live television coverage of the speech. In 1984, demonstrators representing the same group occupied King's Hall and attempted to force entry to the chamber, injuring an attendant in the process and causing damage to the chamber doors. Under these circumstances, the President and I authorised a police presence in King's Hall. Three officers were stationed there throughout the evening, with an additional 11 officers, including two in plain clothes, called when the demonstration began. It is my view and that of the President that public access to King's Hall should not be restricted, except under extreme circumstances. At no stage on Budget day was public access denied. I wish to assure all honourable members that the policies in regard to police presence in Parliament House are those which have been applied by successive Presiding Officers. The number of police on duty at Parliament House at any time is the minimum considered necessary to ensure the security of the Parliament. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —Madam Speaker, with your indulgence, I rise on behalf of members of the Opposition to thank you for that statement. It was canvassed as an issue not because we were critical of the police presence, but because I felt that there would be some value in the explanation that you have now given being given to members, I thank you for it. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to sub-section 33 (3) of the Australian National University Act 1946, I present the Australian National University interim annual report, part 1, for 1985. Part 2 of the Reports containing the Auditor-General's report and financial statements will be presented as soon as it is available. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to sub-section 39 (4) of the Maritime College Act 1978, I present the annual report of the Australian Maritime College for 1985. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to sub-section 30 (3) of the Canberra College of Advanced Education Act 1967, I present a report on the operations of the Canberra College of Advanced Education for 1985. I also present, pursuant to section 34c of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, a statement furnished by the college and a statement by the Minister for Education granting an extension of time in tabling this report. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report by the Australian Government Actuary on the long term costs of the Commonwealth superannuation scheme. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed. That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —For the information of honourable members, I present the following Industries Assistance Commission reports: The Power Electronics Industry Certain Fluorescent Lamps (Tubes) from The Federal Republic of Germany and Canada (Anti-Dumping) Outboard Engines Certain Knife Blades and Cutlery Blanks (Concessional Arrangements) Aluminised Steel for use in Muffler Components and Exhaust Systems (Concessional Arrangements) The Chemicals and Plastics Industries Cultivation Machinery Certain Aircraft Parts and Servicing Equipment (Concessional Arrangements) Crop and Rainfall Insurance These reports were circulated to honourable members during the winter adjournment. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report by the Marine Research Allocations Advisory Committee on marine sciences and technologies grants for 1986. This report was circulated to all honourable members during the winter adjournment. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Recombinant DNA Monitoring Committee report for the period 1 July 1984 to 30 June 1985. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —Pursuant to sub-section 18 (2) of the Advance Australia Logo Protection Act 1984, I present the annual report of the Advance Australia Foundation 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 BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Industries Assistance Commission report on Harmonisation of the Customs Tariff. The report was circulated to honourable members during the winter adjournment. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Industries Assistance Commission report on the textile, clothing and footwear industries. This report was circulated to honourable members during the winter adjournment. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation to correct a matter that I realise I should not have referred to yesterday. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —The honourable member has the Chair's indulgence. Mr TUCKEY —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The situation is that I complained yesterday regarding certain references that had been made in the Parliament to my attitude on certain matters. Mr Deputy Speaker, in that process I pointed out that you had been involved in the original dissociation and I consequently inferred that you should have had a better understanding when you responded to a point of order raised by the honourable member for Deakin. The honourable member (Mr Beale) said: The honourable member for O'Connor made a personal explanation this afternoon in which he dissociated himself from that position. Mr Deputy Speaker, you replied: The Chair is not in a position to know whether the honourable member for O'Connor did or did not do that . . . Mr Deputy Speaker, I complained that you should have known because you were in the chair at the time. The reality is that you were not necessarily in the chair that afternoon because I had made my personal explanation the day before. I was therefore wrong in suggesting that you should have known about it or spoken other than in the manner you did. Sir, I apologise for that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I thank the honourable member. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I take it that the honourable member wishes to make a personal explanation. Mr CUNNINGHAM —I do. In yesterday's Canberra Times an article was written in relation to the suspended Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair). I want to quote a couple of paragraphs from that article before I give my personal explanation. The article states: The . . . member called a news conference at which he aired his doubts about the Speaker's suitability to be custodian of the Justice Murphy parliamentary commission documents when the inquiry is wound up. `I rather doubt in the circumstances of the Speaker's behaviour that she necessarily is a person into whose custody I'd want documents of this kind left', Mr Sinclair said-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has to tell the House where he has been misrepresented. Mr CUNNINGHAM —I am getting to that point. The Leader of the National Party in his apology to the Speaker previously claimed he was speaking about this Parliament and not about the Speaker. He may have satisfied the matter in relation to how he was reported in the Canberra Times. However, in his answer he has said that he was referring to this Parliament. I take exception to this member. He has no right to judge other members of this House. I demand an apology from the right honourable member for New England for the reflection on this House in what he has said. Mr N.A. Brown —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. This allegation, whatever it may be, does not refer to the honourable member specifically. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for McMillan needs to tell the House where he has personally been misrepresented. Mr CUNNINGHAM —That is what I am doing. I am saying that the right honourable member for New England has personally reflected on me as a member and this Parliament-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! If the honourable member for McMillan felt he was reflected upon he should have raised that at the time the right honourable member for New England made his remarks, not now. Mr CUNNINGHAM —This is the first opportunity I have had under the Standing Orders to raise the matter. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member had the opportunity to take a point of order at the time. The honourable member could have taken a point of order at the time during Question Time and asked for a withdrawal on the basis that he felt personally offended. The honourable member has not been misrepresented by what the right honourable member for New England has said. Mr CUNNINGHAM —Then, I am raising a point of order right now, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Unfortunately, I think it is too late for that. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —For the information of honourable members, I present the following reports which have been circulated to all honourable members: Ownership and Control of Commercial Television and the Equalisation of Regional Commercial Television Draft Indicative Plan. I also present a report on the future directions for commercial radio. This report has not yet been printed but limited copies of the proof are available in the Parliamentary Library for perusal. As soon as the report becomes available, a copy will be forwarded to all honourable members. Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a statement. Leave granted. Mr DUFFY —I wish to report progress on several inter-related projects which contribute towards the Government's goal of providing broadcasting services in most regional areas comparable to those in the capital cities; that is, equalisation. As I said in my last ministerial statement, Regional Commercial Television in Australia, on 20 May 1986, equalisation is well within our reach. Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio and television services are now available to all Australians, wherever they live. The Government also plans, wherever possible, to offer commercial services to Australians living in remote and regional areas. Accordingly, we have already introduced remote commercial television services-RCTS-and expect the first of these to go to air in November this year. We have also initiated a series of studies designed to foreshadow the main milestones for the commercial sector of the broadcasting system in the next 10 years. I can report today that three important studies are now available: (a) Ownership and Control of Commercial Television; (b) Equalisation of Regional Commercial Television: Draft Indicative Plan; and (c) Future Directions for commercial Radio. Anyone interested in the future of broadcasting will have ample material for analysis and comment in these three documents. Ownership and Control of Commercial Television On 28 August 1985 I announced that the Forward Development Unit-FDU-of my Department would make a study of the ownership and control rules applying to commercial television stations, in order to identify options for change. I directed the FDU to consult with the broadcasting industry, unions, consumer groups and other interested organisations and to concentrate upon: (a) evaluating the current ownership and/or control system in terms of its effectiveness in achieving the Government's policy objectives; (b) identifying the principles which should underlie any new system of ownership and/or control; (c) developing alternative proposals, including draft guidelines for amendments to the broadcasting legislation. As usual, the FDU was not to make recommendations, but to provide background and to identify issues and options. The ownership and control regime incorporated in the Broadcasting Act 1942 is a complex net of inter-related provisions forged essentially in the 1950s and 1960s. The FDU study has confirmed that they are no longer adequate and are badly in need of updating. Indeed, it agrees with one learned judge in labelling them as `labyrinthine and tortuous'. Among the many specifics in the report, the FDU identified five `key principles' advanced by past Ministers, regulatory authorities and committees of inquiry as underpinning the regulations: (a) to avoid undue concentration of ownership or control of commercial television; (b) to promote local ownership and favour `independent' applicants; (c) to limit foreign ownership and prohibit foreign control; (d) to preserve the integrity of licensing decisions; and (e) to encourage a diverse shareholding in licensee companies. It also noted that the issue of `cross-media ownership' had been given considerable prominence during licence inquiries. Whatever their merits when first advanced, the FDU suggests that two of these five `key principles' are no longer attainable. In the case of local ownership, as early as 1984 Mr James Oswin's localism report examined nine regional television stations and found that seven of the nine already had less than 25 per cent local shareholding, while only one was more than 50 per cent locally owned. In the case of diversity in television shareholdings, the FDU found that if the interests of parent companies and subsidiaries are taken into account, 27 of the 50 licensee companies are 100 per cent owned and 40 have a major shareholder with 50 per cent or more of their shares. Another four have a major shareholder with 45 to 49.99 per cent of their shares. Put simply, in only six licensee companies is there any spread of shareholding. Moreover, these are companies with licences for the smaller stations, each serving not more than 1 per cent of the Australian population. The other three principles remain highly relevant but would benefit from restatement. This applies particularly to the principles regarding undue concentration of ownership and control, foreign ownership and control and preserving the integrity of licensing decisions. Having studied ownership patterns in detail, the study confirmed a pattern of consolidation of ownership within licensee companies. It noted that, at 31 December 1985, 22 persons held prescribed interests in two licences, that is, they hold two licences, or control two licences, or have more than 5 per cent control shares in two licences. It also noted that there was extensive cross-ownership between commercial television and other media. In 22 markets, at least one person holds a direct prescribed interest in both the local television licence and a local radio licence. When ownership of print media is also taken into account, it is evident that there is substantial cross-media ownership at the local level. There is also extensive cross-media ownership at national level. The four largest media groups, Herald and Weekly Times, Fairfax, News Corporation and Consolidated Press, have very extensive holdings in television, radio and newspapers. The FDU noted the Australian Labor Party Federal platform, which includes a plank: `Limit the degree of cross-media ownership currently existing in Australia'. Currently the ownership and control rules capture literally hundreds of persons who have no ability to affect programming decisions in any way, yet considerable resources are consumed in registering their interests. The study suggests that it might be more sensible to define `system objectives' in the legislation. `Ownership', `control' and `influence' are all elusive concepts and it would be logical to relate the rules to persons who are able to affect the outputs-the services and programs produced by the broadcasting system. Of course, there is a great deal more in the report. It appears in two substantial volumes and will be a source document for many years to come for anyone interested in the media. My specific purpose today is to table the report. My Department will organise a seminar for interested parties early next year and I will accept submissions regarding ownership and control matters generally until 31 March 1987. One final word on this subject. My Department published the FDU's first report, `Future Directions for Commercial Television', in June 1985. That report identified various approaches to revising the `two station rule'. The present FDU report takes up the same theme, observing that there are two broad approaches to replacing the current rule: Firstly, express the limit in terms of the holding of prescribed interests in commercial television licences which together reach a specified proportion of the Australian population. Secondly, establish numerical limits for designated categories of licence. That is, there is general agreement that a new rule should reflect the audience of stations, but the actual formula to be set has not yet been decided. It has been extensively discussed, and in May this year the Government decided to address the questions of the `two station rule' by 31 October 1986. Equalisation of Regional Commercial Television Having considered the FDU's report, in December 1985 the Government established a committee of Ministers, consisting of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button), the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and myself, to review a number of key questions concerning equalisation of regional commercial television. A task force consisting of officers from the relevant departments and chaired by Mr Charles Halton provided advice to the committee. On 12 May 1986, the Government made a series of decisions which were reflected in my statement of 20 May. As a consequence, in June, I established a small group of planners in my Department to prepare a draft indicative plan, that is, a plan setting out the Government's intentions regarding the aggregation of television markets. This has now been published under the title of `Equalisation of Regional Commercial Television: Draft Indicative Plan'. Since the draft plan has been given extensive publicity, I do not propose to elaborate too much here. However, it may be useful if I remind the House of the main points. Basically, it identifies the planning criteria to be applied in moving towards equalisation as community of interest, viability, contiguity and avoiding overlap of time zones or State borders. On the basis of these criteria, it proposes approved markets, known as AMs, in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. It also proposes three potential AMs in South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania and three remote areas-Mount Isa, Broken Hill and Darwin. These remote areas were judged to be too small at this time to support three competitive services. Since in South Australia and Western Australia the only way to achieve three competitive services would be to include the State capitals in approved markets, and this involves too many owners, the draft plan recommends that regional licensees in those States be allowed to take the interim step of multi-channel services; that is, licensees will be able to provide a second, or a third, service in their existing markets. It proposes that the situation be reviewed after likely changes to the ownership and control rules. Because of its relatively small size as a market, its isolation and its current ownership pattern, the draft plan treats Tasmania as a special case. It proposes to provide two competitive services by inviting applications for a new licence covering both the Hobart and Launceston service areas. This also will be subject to review by the Minister. Honourable members may know that the draft plan provides detailed technical, socio-economic and financial material required to make planning decisions for all regional areas in Australia. This is the first time such material has ever been available and it too should prove to be a valuable source document for some time. However, I want to stress that the draft plan is just that-a draft plan. I have already noted the arguments of Regional Television Australia, which represents regional licensees, that aggregated markets need populations of about one million if three competitive services are to survive. The effect of this approach would be to have only four approved markets-one in Queensland, two in New South Wales and one in Victoria. I have also received some early submissions from individual licensees. For example, the licensees from Ballarat/Shepparton, Bendigo/Traralgon and Hobart/Launceston suggest that the regional areas of Victoria and Tasmania should be combined into one approved market so that they will have a larger and richer advertising base from which to operate. We have not yet decided anything regarding the final indicative plan. However, I should comment that some of these early submissions appear to be more concerned with the interests of licensees than the interests of viewers. My response to such submissions has been to draw attention to the planning criteria and to point out that the Government is planning in the public interest. While viability of the system is an important planning criterion, guaranteeing a high level of profits for existing licensees emphatically is not. It will be seen that the Government has not changed the deadlines for its implementation of equalisation. We still expect services in main centres by 1988 and services in lesser centres by 1990. Submissions regarding the draft indicative plan close on 17 September 1986. Future Directions for Commercial Radio The last of the three studies is about radio rather than television. In February 1985, I directed the FDU to undertake a study of future directions for commercial broadcasting in Australia. Among other things, I asked it to identify options leading to `adequate commercial radio services to all communities'. Later the same year I defined `adequate' to mean `as soon as practical, make available at least one additional commercial radio service to communities outside mainland State capital cities'. Inevitably, the planners have dubbed this the `additional services policy'. In February 1986, after representations from the Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters, I directed the FDU to produce an interim report regarding the question of converting existing commercial AM services to the FM band. This they did and the report was published in March 1986. While there are many logical possibilities, the report found that only three options were worth discussing: Option 1: Allow all commercial stations to convert Option 2: Allow regional commercial stations in competition with an FM station to convert Option 3: Allow no conversion. There are, of course, partial versions of any of these as well. The present report, which is entitled `Future Directions for Commercial Radio', should be read in conjunction with the interim report. Basically, it suggests that the Minister for Communications should categorise markets into four groups: Group A-markets where the Minister finds a prima facie case that a new competing licence would be viable; Group B-markets where the Minister feels that it is not possible to decide without further data; Group C-markets where the Minister is satisfied that a new, competing licence would not be viable; and Group D-markets so isolated and or small that special measures must be taken. Once this categorisation has been done, the FDU suggests three options for delivering additional services: Option 1: Status quo would use the existing supplementary licence scheme and ministerial planning powers, but vary their application according to the category of market concerned. Option 2: Compromise would allow for automatic grant of supplementary licences in Group C markets, that is, those where a new licence is not viable. Option 3: `Fast-track' would amend the legislation to abolish the existing supplementary licence scheme and allow for the granting of permits to existing licensees to provide a second service in Group C markets. It should be noted that, under any of these options, as Minister for Communications I would immediately invite applications for the grant of commercial radio licences in appropriate Group A markets. These additional licences would not necessarily have the same service area as existing licences, but could be based on urban centres or such existing entities as television Service Areas. While progress with planning proposals will, of course, be subject to resource constraints, this is perhaps the most important single section because it suggests a means of breaking the log-jam in planning for additional radio services and allowing aspiring licensees to put their case before public inquiries. Other matters of interest covered in the report are ownership and control, program regulation, localism and viability. The FDU scouts three areas of change regarding ownership and control rules for radio. It looks at options for raising or removing the national limit of eight licences per person and suggests that the one-to-a-market rule will have to be extended to regional areas, as in television; that is, it would not be possible for a person to own or control two commercial stations in the same market. The report also flags the possibility of removing some rules regarding radio altogether. In the area of programming, it observes that introduction of one additional station in regional markets will not necessarily provide diversity of choice to country listeners. Many people argue that licensees, intent on maximising their ratings, will indulge in `me-tooism'-the practice of duplicating their rival's programs so that both stations aim at exactly the same segment of the audience. The FDU does not agree that this is inevitable. However, it suggests that such a development would lead to complaints from listeners and identifies some options for program regulation if the Government felt that licensees were not using their stations to provide diversity of choice. One of its more depressing conclusions is that although listeners strongly support local content in programming, and this is used by existing licensees to argue for the status quo, any battle to protect local ownership of commercial radio stations has long since been lost. In 1983 75 per cent of regional stations in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory were less than 25 per cent locally owned. By 1984, 85 per cent of the 33 regional stations surveyed throughout Australia were less than 25 per cent locally-owned. Finally, the FDU discusses the contentious issue of viability. This concept is central to the licensing provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1942 and has been the focus of a good deal of critical attention. Having regard to the Government's interest in making the broadcasting industry competitive, the FDU observes that a review of the concept would highlight the conservative and protectionist effects of having viability entrenched in the legislation. It also identifies a series of difficult issues which need to be addressed in such a review, including the functions to be performed by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. The interim report on AM:FM conversion has been freely available since March and the final report, `Future Directions for Commercial Radio', will be in Australian Government Publishing Service bookshops from 5 September. Submissions regarding both reports close on 30 November 1986. Conclusion Broadcasters, investors and interested members of the public who study the four FDU reports and the draft indicative plan will recognise that they set the agenda for debate on the broadcasting industry. In exercising my responsibility under the Broadcasting Act 1942 `to plan the development of broadcasting services in Australia', I will be greatly helped by their existence. They do not prescribe policy; nor do they provide all the answers. That is the job of the Government. But they contain an immensely useful body of data about the industry which has not been systematically assembled before and they do flag the significant issues. They will be an essential point of departure for discussions about broadcasting during the next decade. Finally, I should not let the occasion pass without conveying my personal gratitude to the small band of officials in the FDU and the Indicative Planning Group, who have produced these reports. At a time when resources are very tight, it is all too easy for people outside government to imagine that the solution to our problems might be to attack waste and inefficiency in the public sector. As the Budget Speech has made abundantly clear, we have no reservations about examining Government spending and making hard decisions as a result, but it should not be forgotten that the best people in the Public Service are very good indeed. As the preparation and publication of these reports over a period of just 18 months demonstrates, they can also be very hard-working and productive. Motion (by Mr Cohen) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(3.23) —I move: That the debate be adjourned. In doing so, may I say briefly that it is understood by the Government and the Opposition that we are doing this only because the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) is not available today. We would have been anxious to debate this matter immediately, but in view of his absence we express the view to the Government that it might be desirable to put off the debate until we return. We would like the opportunity to do so. Question resolved in the affirmative. 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 assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that many Post Office Agencies are to be closed. They provide a network of offices with postal and agency services to residential areas and small communities. They serve a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced if forced to travel further to purchase postal items or collect parcels. It would be an unnecessary expense particularly for pensioners without their own transport. We maintain that the purpose of Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer. They are a community centre particularly in country areas and if necessary they should be subsidised to retain them. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of post office agencies and that the network should be extended, with the Agency services they offer expanded. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Aldred,Mr Beale,Mr Bilney,Mr Burr,Mr Cadman,Mr Charles,Mr Cobb,Mr Coleman,Mr Connolly,Mr Downer,Mr Drummond,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Fife,Mr Free,Mr Halverson,Mr Hollis,Mr Kent,Mr Langmore,Mr Lee,Mr Lloyd,Mr McArthur,Mr McVeigh,Mr Martin,Mr Porter,Mr Ian Robinson,Mr Scott,Mr Shipton,Mr Smith,Mr Uren,Mr White and Mr Willis. 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 Chynoweth,Ms Fatin,Mr Hand,Ms Jakobsen,Mr Langmore,Mr Kent,Ms McHugh,Mr Milton,Mr Saunderson,Mr Scott and Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: Graduated family allowances are of important assistance to families with more than one child. All family allowances, whether for one, two, three, or more children, have not kept pace with inflation. There are suggestions that all family allowances should be paid at the one flat rate. This would severely disadvantage families with more than one child. There are also suggestions that the dependent spouse rebate be reduced or removed. This would represent another blow to the family unit. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should: Ask the Federal Government to increase the value of existing family allowance payments, and Reject any moves to change the payments to a flat rate or to tamper with the spouse rebate; And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Aldred,Mr Chynoweth,Mr Halverson,Mr Hand,Mr Barry Jones,Mr Kent,Mr McArthur and Mr Shipton. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That taxpayers with dependent children have been gravely disadvantaged by a serious decline in the level of recognition provided in the taxation system for the costs of maintaining a family, in particular. The failure to index family allowances which has resulted in an erosion of more than 50% in their real value since May 1976; The abolition of family allowances for dependants who have turned 18, even those still at school; The abolition of concessional tax rebates for education and other expenses. That this erosion in horizontal tax equity has placed an intolerable financial burden on many larger families, particularly those on middle incomes who fail to qualify for means-tested benefits such as TEAS but whose living standards are now well below average due to heavy expenses on necessities such as education, housing, food and clothing. Your petitioners humbly pray that: family allowances be restored to the 1976 value (in real terms), and indexed according to the CPI; the dependent spouse rebate be retained; the Federal government take urgent measures to restore equitable provisions in the taxation system through the introduction of family income splitting. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Beale,Mr N.A. Brown,Mr Donald Cameron,Mr Halverson and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That families have been gravely disadvantaged by a serious decline in the level of their net disposable income through: Failure to index family allowances-resulting in a 50% loss in their real value since 1976 Abolition of family allowances for dependants who have turned 18-even those still at school Failure to increase the spouse rebate since 1982 Discriminatory taxation system-which penalises single income families. Recognising the cost benefit to taxpayers when the intact family unit itself delivers essential care to the extended family. Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take immediate action to: Restore the lost value of family allowances and to index them to cover future price rises Introduce optional income-splitting for taxation purposes Retain the spouse rebate. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Coleman. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned plead that the Parliament implement pro-family policies. In particular we appeal for: 1. The retention of the present graduated assessment system for payment of the Family Allowance; 2. Indexation of the Family Allowance in order to keep pace with inflation; 3. An increase of 3.7% in the Family Allowance benefit to return it to 11.5% of the Average Award Wage (making it similar in value to the 11.5% of the Basic Wage when Child Endowment was first introduced by the Chifley Government in 1941). 4. Retention of the Dependent Spouse Rebate and the amount of the Dependent Spouse Rebate adjusted so that it is equal in value to the tax-free threshold allowed when calculating taxable income. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the Hawke Government should; 1. Pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices on 1 March 1986; 2. Not increase or extend fuel taxes; and 3. 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 Cadman,Mr Hawker and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Socialist Government should: pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices; not increase or extend fuel taxes; and maintain its tax cut commitments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Socialist Government should not continue to rob the taxpayers of Australia by failing to pass on the fuel tax cuts due under the Import Parity Pricing System. 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 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 Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Hawker and Mr McArthur. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That the overwhelming majority of Australians are completely satisfied with the existing Australian National Flag. 2. That we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as provided in section 3 of the Flags Act, unless such proposed change is first voted on by the people of Australia and passed by a majority of voters in a majority of States. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that persistent rumours 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: Ensuring no additional cut-backs will be made to the portfolio of Veterans' Affairs. Reviewing the previous cut-backs in such areas as the travel allowances, dental scheme and repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Proceeding with abolishing more stringent conditions applying to the granting of the TPI pension. by Mr Everingham,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 of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: Persistent rumour suggests 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 House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Honour its commitment and that of previous Governments to ex-servicemen and women by: Ensuring no additional cut-backs will be made to the portfolio of Veterans' Affairs. Reviewing the previous cut-backs in such areas as the travel allowances, dental scheme and repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Proceeding with abolishing more stringent conditions applying to the granting of the TPI pension. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia assembled: We, the undersigned, plead that Parliament will legislate, or act in accordance with the present legislation to replace the current members of the Film Censorship Board who have admitted to Senator Harradine on 12th December 1984 as reported in the Senate Select Committee on Video Material, (see attached extracts), that they are not applying either the blasphemy or obscenity tests as required under the provisions of the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations, and that these persons be replaced by persons who will apply these and the other related test in accordance with the said Regulations. Your petitioners humbly pray that you will give this matter your earnest consideration. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hayden,Mr Punch and Mr Tuckey. 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 the Australian Government 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''. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray. by Mr Blunt and Mr Hand. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag; 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt and Mr Rocher. 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 3 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. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That we the undersigned are totally opposed to the introduction of a $2 fee on prescription drugs for pensioners. 2. That the impact of such a fee will be particularly felt by the chronically ill elderly who will be faced with a $2 burden with the purchase of each pharmaceutical benefit scheme drug. Your petitioners therefore urge the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to ensure that prescription drugs continue to be provided to the pensioner population without the $2 fee on each prescription. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cobb and Mr Halverson. 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: 1. We the undersigned are totally opposed to the introduction of a $2.00 fee on prescription drugs for pensioners; 2. The impact of such a fee will be particularly felt by the chronically ill elderly who will be faced with a $2.00 burden with the purchase of each Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme drug; Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Ensure that prescription drugs continue to be provided to the pensioner population without the $2.00 fee on each prescription. 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. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That, for our survival, an effective Worldpeace Initiative needs to be established to work towards mutual understanding, world disarmament, economic well-being for all and full employment. This Initiative will help to ensure a sustainable society conserving natural resources, and revitalising soils essential for growing a plentiful and healthy food supply and tree cover for the needs of present and future generations. By working for these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: 1. Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year for Repairing the Earth. 2. Implement action programs leading up to 1989 which will include: (a) Actively supporting the International Year of Peace in 1986 by reallocating at least 10% of our military expenditure to fund environmental repair programs. (b) Implementing National Recycling Programs to reuse water, and to compost into hygienic humus all presently wasted organic garbage and sewage-sludge mixed with fine ground powder from mineral-rich gravels and rocks, to use as a natural fertiliser in revitalising impoverished soils; (c) Developing National Employment Programs giving priority to the planting and growing of healthy forests, food-producing trees and other crops and vegetation including environmentally sound use and reuse of water to assist the greening of Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Carlton and Ms Jakobsen. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the Bill of Rights is a dangerous piece of legislation which gives us no new legally enforceable rights; That the Bill of Rights leaves out vital rights such as the right not to belong to a trade union, the right to own private property, the right to a private education; That the Bill of Rights gives dangerous new powers to a Federal Government Commission to investigate in private, without legal representation and with criminal penalties for refusing to co-operate; That the Bill of Rights deals with our rights; therefore we, the people, should say whether we want it by a referendum. Your petitioners humbly pray that you 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 Dr Harry Edwards. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the Bill of Rights is a dangerous piece of legislation which gives us no new legally enforceable rights; That the Bill of Rights leaves out vital rights such as the right not to belong to a trade union, the right to own private property, the right to a private education; That the Bill of Rights gives dangerous new powers to a Federal Government Commission to investigate in private, without legal representation and with criminal penalties for refusing to co-operate; That the Bill of Rights deals with our rights; therefore we, the people, should say whether we want it by a referendum. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will oppose the Bill of Rights, support Liberal amendments to improve it in case it is passed, and pledge to repeal it should it become law. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of 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 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 Blunt and Mr Hicks. To the Honourable the Speaker and the 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 pensions 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. by Dr Harry Edwards and Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of citizens of Australia shows that- Approximately 100,000 Australians live on the verge of homelessness, dependent on Government resources to survive, or sleep out of doors or in refuges. Over 700,000 households, or in excess of 2 million Australians are living below the poverty line after paying their rent or mortgage costs. In addition, there are thousands of households with special needs, such as the disabled, who are not well catered for in the private sector but who nevertheless require suitable housing. Waiting lists for public housing have almost doubled in the past five years to 146,000 by June 1985. The list is expected to grow to some 250,000 by 1990. We therefore ask that the Australian Government, as a highest priority. Undertake a campaign to bring the issue of poverty and, in particular, housing-related poverty, to the attention of the Australian public. Increase expenditure on public housing through the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement, by at least 15% annually in real terms. Increase rent relief payments for those on low incomes in the private rental market. Use its influence with State and Territory governments to encourage them to increase their expenditures on public housing. by Ms Fatin and Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in 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. by Mr Hand and Mr McArthur. 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 destabilizing 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 incourage 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 weapon 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 of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: We the undersigned residents of Australia totally reject any move to cut funding to Australia-wide English as a Second Language programs in schools. We request that the Australian government restore funding to the 1985 level in the 1986/87 budget. by Mr Hollis and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth the legislation to tax fringe benefits is iniquitous, inequitable and unfair. Your petitioners humbly pray that you do not proceed with the legislation. by Mr Beale. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Government should cancel the Fringe Benefits Tax they intend to impose on businesses throughout Australia because: 1. The tax discriminates against charitable organisations, sports clubs, private schools and religious organisations: 2. The tax will mean employees around Australia will suffer reductions in their remuneration packages: 3. The Bill places another impossible burden of paperwork on small businesses: 4. The Bill is absurd in its application to Government employees, who now constitute 32% of the workforce. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas: (a) Aboriginal and Islander languages, which numbered approximately 260 when Europeans first arrived, are even more seriously endangered-already 145 have become extinct. (b) English-speaking population expansion and English-speaking mass media expansion threatens the survival of the remaining languages of Australia. (c) Aboriginal languages reflect an ethos that is truly Australian and unless steps are taken to implement language maintenance, this ethos will be lost not only to Aborigines but to non-Aboriginal Australians, and to the world. We humbly pray the Government to: 1. Through the Prime Minister's Department, provide $300,000 per annum for a guaranteed period of ten years to enable the Aboriginal community of Australia to establish a co-ordinating body to implement steps to prevent the extinction of the remaining languages, and to introduce programmes which will enable these languages to continue into the future for the sake of all Australians. This body will enable us to maximise existing financial, material, and human resources, and is the least expensive way of implementing urgently needed maintenance programmes. 2. Through the Prime Minister's Department, provide finance for the establishment of Regional Language Centres-ten are urgently needed-cost $200,000 each. by Mr Hand. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: We, the undersigned petitioners, call upon the Australian Parliament to set up strong national Aboriginal land-rights legislation. We call upon Parliament to establish this legislation in line with the five principles of ALP Party Policy and to use its powers to over-ride states which do not comply with the legislation. by Mr Hand. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the many anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions brought to its notice, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows- That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we strongly oppose the introduction of the ``Australia Card'' or any other form of National Identification Numbering System. We believe that the introduction of a National Identification Numbering System is not only totally unnecessary but is a severe threat to our civil liberties and privacy. We condemn the Government's actions on this matter, particularly as no reasonable nor responsible justifications for the proposal have been forthcoming from the Government. We humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should reject any proposal for a National Identification Numbering System. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. 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 in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain electors of Australia 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 Nehl. 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 Nehl. 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 in the wake of the Chernobyl reactor disaster, no nuclear reactor can be considered entirely safe. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government close down the Lucas Heights reactor immediately and permanently. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Martin. 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 in the wake of the Chernobyl reactor disaster, no nuclear reactor can be considered entirely safe. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government close down the Lucas Heights reactor immediately and that no new nuclear reactors be built within Australia. 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 the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The fringe benefits tax will cause hardship to business throughout Australia, especially in the already severely-depressed rural sector and in the motor vehicle industry. The fringe benefits tax will be a disincentive to employment and worse, will result in additional unemployment. The economy of this country would best be served by policies that lightened the tax burden, not increased it, that encouraged enterprise, not stifled it and stimulated growth, development and jobs, not prevented it. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will repeal this legislation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned at the impact of the new Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds: 1. its severe and damaging effect on business confidence, investment and incentive, especially in the rural, mining and small business sectors; 2. its capacity to seriously worsen unemployment through the additional costs it imposes; 3. its extremely negative impact on the competitiveness of export industries at a time when the nation desperately needs to improve its trading performance; 4. in that it may compel many honest and decent citizens to defy the tax in order to preserve their livelihoods, their businesses and the jobs of their employees, thus causing hardship, the breakdown of respect for the law and discord within the community. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax legislation forthwith. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That whereas the Federal Government has imposed the Fringe Benefits Tax, such a tax will increase inflationary pressures, lead to a net loss in employment, will add significant cost and time burdens to business in this country and is in every sense an inequitable taxation measure. The following people in the state of Tasmania therefore urge the Federal Parliament to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Smith. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sayeth: That we the undersigned are totally opposed to any taxation change which involves a tax on Health Fund contributions, health charges or benefits. That we are already required to pay a 1 per cent levy to partly finance the Medicare scheme and that we would regard any further taxation of our health insurance arrangements as unfair and unreasonable. That therefore we urge the Government to ensure that there is no taxation on illness and no special taxation on those who seek to insure themselves against the cost of private health care. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that the Post Office at Marsfield be closed. The Post Office serves a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced by having to travel to another centre for our postal and banking requirements, or even to collect registered, certified letters and parcels. Many of us are pensioners and the cost of such travel would be an unnecessary imposition. The nearest Post Offices are about 2kms away with no convenient public transport. Also for those of us who work during the week, this is the only Post Office open on Saturday mornings where we can collect our parcels, do our mailing and other services it provides. We maintain that the purpose of Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer, and that they should not be closed merely to save money or help Australia Post make a profit. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that The House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of Marsfield Post Office. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows: Woodchipping and clear-felling will destroy the Otway forests, water catchments and jobs in tourism. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will protect the Otway forests for the future and refuse any licence to export woodchips from the Otways. by Mr Scholes. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia, electors of the Division of Calare shows- The proposed gold tax will severely affect the livelihood of numerous people involved in the exploration, mining and service divisions of the gold mining industry in this district. Your petitioners therefore pray that the proposed gold tax not be introduced. by Mr Simmons. To the Honourable the President 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. 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. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. 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 N.S.W. 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. We, the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth, do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government: Take the action necessary to create an Australian Republic on or before 1st January 1988. 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 assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the hardship which will be caused to these citizens as a consequence of proposed cuts in Social Security Benefits being initiated in the Budget to be brought down on August 19, 1986. Your petitioners therefore pray and request the Government not to attack the living standards of those least able to provide for themselves. by Mr Willis. 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: There is an urgent need to up-grade and extend the facilities at the Northern Rivers College of Advanced Education. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Provide the necessary capital funding for the Northern Rivers CAE to ensure North Coast students have access to a tertiary institution capable of providing them with the skills they will need to meet the challenges of the future. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The 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 Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully request that: That 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 citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: that the current policy pursued by the Hawke Government is causing an intolerable increase in home loan interest rates beyond the capacity of families to pay. that consequently this policy is causing grave hardship throughout Australia and is contributing to social problems and the breakup of the family unit. that unless the Government act urgently the Australian dream of home ownership is fast becoming shattered for many of our citizens. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Government make home loan interest rates tax deductible therefore alleviating the present crippling burden of current high interest rates on home owners and home buyers. 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 actions of trade unions have gone beyond their traditional goals of protecting workers conditions and rates of pay and have reached the point where they are seriously affecting the economic health of the nation and the people. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That all Governments throughout Australia acknowledge and protect the Right to Work on behalf of all Australians. 2. That the total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamental requirement of a workable, balanced Federal system of government. 3. That all necessary steps be taken to protect the citizens of Australia from any 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 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. 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 State of Queensland respectfully showeth that: The legislation to tax fringe benefits is iniquitous, inequitable and unfair; It will severely disadvantage both employees and employers; Employees will clearly lose many fringe benefits as a direct result of the additional heavy taxation burden being imposed upon employers; Employers will be forced to pay even higher levels of taxation to provide fringe benefits for employees. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Immediately abandon the Fringe Benefits Tax. 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 certain citizens of the State of 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Queensland 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 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 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 Cadman. 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 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. To the honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron. To the honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Kalgoorlie respectfully showeth: That the activities of finance companies Nat-West, Custom Credit Corp. (owned by the National Australia Bank) and Citizen Finance Ltd are totally reprehensible and deserves condemnation by all Australian Consumers for the following reasons: 1. Their failure to acknowledge a moral responsibility to their customers following the collapse of Video Ratings/Highlights Pty Ltd by insisting their customers pay thousands of dollars for goods and services not received. 2. In the case of Nat-West and Custom Credit Corp., their failure to offer W.A. consumers the same settlement offered customers in the Eastern States in the same circumstances. 3. Their continued harassment and threats of legal action against consumers in West Australia. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the government will take measures to ensure that these and other major financial institutions conduct their affairs with proper regard to morality and business ethics. by Mr Campbell. To the honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Victoria respectfully showeth: that all legitimate business expenses incurred in earning or producing assessable income should be allowable taxation deductions; that the Hawke Government's Fringe Benefits Tax is an unwarranted burden on the small business and rural sectors, which will severely affect their long term viability. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government withdraws the Fringe Benefits Tax legislation without delay. by Mr Halverson. To the honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Victoria respectfully showeth: that all legitimate business expenses incurred in earning or producing assessable income should be allowable deductions; that the proposed Capital Gains Tax is an unwarranted burden on the rural sector, which will severely affect its long-term viability. that the delay by the Government in introducing the legislation into Parliament is causing confusion and hindering farmers in the organisation of their affairs. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government introduces the Capital Gains Tax legislation without delay and that the Australian Democrats join with the Opposition to defeat the proposed legislation. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain electors of the division of Lilley shows that there is an area of Commonwealth land surplus to the re-development of the Brisbane Airport site. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Federal Government give favourable consideration to entering into negotiations with the Brisbane City Council in order to provide parkland for the people of Nudgee and surrounding areas. We believe that the nearby residential area is deficient in parkland due to its development prior to the time when provision of parkland by the City Council became a condition of approval for the sub-division of land. Further development of adjoining areas following the opening of the new airport and Gateway Bridge can only make the situation worse. The land to which we refer is situated at the end of Buchanan Road, Nudgee, Queensland, and we believe that part of it would be ideal for use as parkland. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of South Australia shows that the Hawke government should: Not reduce government expenditure on Education, Health, Welfare, Children's Services and Public Housing and that immediate efforts be made to: (i) increase pensions and benefits to 25% of average weekly earnings; (ii) allocate $500 million in the August 1986 budget for increases in the dependent children allowances for pensioners and beneficiaries; (iii) allocate $1 billion in order to increase the stock of available public housing; (iv) maintain the 85% Medicare rebate for medical services; (v) allocate $2 billion for Public School Building programmes over the next five years. And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Mr Duncan. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned members of the Coptic community resident in New South Wales respectfully showeth: Whereas the Coptic Orthodox Church, Diocese of Australia, Parish of New South Wales has enjoyed funding under the Grant-In-Aid Scheme since 1980, and has used the funds granted to employ a full-time social worker to assist members of the Coptic community in Sydney in dealing with problems encountered particularly by ethnic minorities in our society. Whereas the problems of the Coptic community in Sydney are, if anything, greater today than they were in 1980. Whereas the Church's application for continued funding under the Grant-In-Aid Scheme for 1985-86 has been rejected by the Honourable the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Whereas the resultant loss of the services of a full-time social worker will cause immense hardship and distress within the Coptic community in Sydney. Your petitioners therefore pray that the funding of the Coptic Orthodox Church, Diocese of Australia and Parish of New South Wales under the Grant-In-Aid Scheme be restored for 1985-86, and for so long thereafter as may be necessary in order to meet the needs of the Coptic community in Sydney. And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Mr Punch. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's failure to respond appropriately to Australia's trade crisis, the resultant record trade deficit and the consequent lowering of living standards for all Australians. 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 BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(3.34) —Initially I wish to draw the attention of the House to the important fact that the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) himself is not in the House. If he intends to respond to the debate I believe that he should be here to listen to the charges that are made against him. Australians awaited last Tuesday's Budget for the Government's response to Australia's trade crisis. This occurred in a month when the Australian dollar had shrunk to a record low as a result of the current account deficit which continued its July plunge after a record of $13.7 billion which was adjusted to 1986. It is interesting to note that that figure was reached after the previous two records which had escalated from the previous years by $3,000m each. It also occurred at a time when our annual inflation rate was posted at 8.4 per cent and the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission had awarded a 2.3 per cent wage increase and a 3 per cent superannuation payment which the markets determined we did not deserve and could not afford. It was also at a time when interest rates had edged up to 18.5 per cent. The Budget itself gives no relief to the dollar which fell by another 4c as the international money markets gave their opinion of our trading prospects, our economy and-most importantly-this Government. Australians have been asked, through this Budget, to sacrifice their standards of living. They have made that sacrifice, but no guarantee has been given by the Government and very little hope has been given in the Budget of improving Australia's balance of trade and its competitiveness as a result of the sacrifice. We might say that the Budget itself has been an instrument which has provided too little too late, because the Government became aware of the situation at least 12 months ago. Certainly the rest of Australia was aware of it at that time. For the past six months the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Treasurer (Mr Keating) the Minister for Trade and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) have been posturing overseas about corrupt trading practices engaged in in the European Economic Community and the United States of America. What the international markets have been saying for a while and particularly this week is that this Labor Government has corrupted the Australian domestic economy. The result is the decreased value of our dollar. Probably the most recent debacle was highlighted in the Sydney Morning Herald today. For those who did not see it, it carried an article referring to a lost opportunity in the Philippines. This comes on the eve of a meeting of the agricultural exporting nations in Cairns. The Australian Government has offended the Philippines, which is to be a key participant in that meeting. The Philippines Minister for Agriculture and Food, Mr Ramon Mitra, is, according to my information, so annoyed by the Australian Government's procrastination over the appointment of an Australian scientist as a livestock consultant to his country, that he has reportedly placed an embargo on the importation of Australian livestock and products. According again to my information, Mr Mitra will not be attending the Cairns meeting, which is a rather important meeting, having earlier assured the Minister for Trade that he would do so. These responses are not surprising, given the Australian Government's procrastination over the consultant's appointment, which has held up all livestock development projects in the Philippines' completely neglected livestock sector. Apparently this matter has dragged on since early March, when the Minister for Foreign Affairs first gave an assurance to Mr Mitra that a particular Australian agricultural consultant would be appointed. This affair must be acutely embarrassing to the Minister for Trade, who is now at the table, as only a fortnight ago he was promoting the expression of interest from Mr Mitra in Australia as a source of supply for live cattle. It is also embarrassing to the Prime Minister, who is due to attend the meeting in Cairns on 26 and 27 August. Even so, it is infinitely worse for the Philippines which must be desperate to go to the lengths that it has to apply such an embargo in the current situation. President Aquino has identified agriculture as a priority sector in the Philippines' reconstruction process and now, after all the Australian Government's protestations about wanting to help and trade with Manila, it has let the Filipinos down. The meeting of `fair traders' in Cairns next week is vital in establishing more liberalised world trade, but the Government's treatment of the Philippines could now overshadow that conference on the eve of its commencement. The Sydney Morning Herald article goes on to indicate that Mr Mitra has suggested that the trade that might have been ours will now be shared with the United States, France and New Zealand. That is one of the more up to date matters to which we can refer when we talk about this Government's neglect in that regard. I wish to deal with the area of corruption with which the Minister for Trade seems so well acquainted when he talks about the EEC and the United States farm Bill. I mention particularly the United States farm Bill. As early as March 1985 the then shadow Minister for Trade, Mr Tom McVeigh, gave a warning that the Prime Minister should stand up for Australia and defend our interests over the United States farm Bill. That was in March 1985; it is now August 1986. About a year later the Minister for Trade went to the United States to talk about the United States farm Bill. What the Minister did not know was that a trade war was in the offing as he returned to Australia in Neville Chamberlain style, touting a letter of support from Congressman Kika de la Garza to the United States Administration. The Minister for Trade has claimed credit for cutting the Bill in half, from $2 billion to $1 billion. It later emerged that the export enhancement program was actually $1.5 billion. After the Prime Minister visited the United States, Australia lost a wheat sale to the Yemen and its barley, cotton and rice markets were placed under threat. The Minister for Primary Industry was next to visit the United States, with the result that the United States attacked our wheat market in Sri Lanka before the Minister had even left the country-and this after being given the warning by our shadow Minister for Trade, the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh), so many months before that all was not right with the farm Bill. This sequence of events prompted the response of the shadow Minister for Primary Industry, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt). His response to the developing crisis was to call for an all-party delegation to be sent to the United States. The Government was also urged to request the United States Ambassador to attend Parliament House to respond in this regard. But it took the Government three weeks to act on this advice, and only then not until long after the news broke about the Dole amendment. The all-party delegation, which was suggested by the shadow Minister for Primary Industry, was successful, although it could not prevent the United States from selling 4 million tonnes of wheat to Russia. While all this was happening and while the all-party delegation was in the United States, the Prime Minister was in London prepared to give away Australia's $60m South African wheat market without knowing this could be the consequence of Australian sanctions on South Africa. I refer to another recent trip by the Minister for Trade. Shortly afterwards the Minister led a joint business-union-government delegation to Japan to promote Australia's coal and iron ore exports. He took with him on this trip the President of the Western Australian mining unions, Mr Jack Marks. Only a week before he left, Mr Marks had threatened to use the opportunity to tell the Mitsui company, a part owner of the Robe River mining operations, that he would send it broke if it continued to buy iron ore from Robe River. Given this, he should never have been invited and I have been informed that he used that opportunity to embarrass the delegation. We have to ask at this time who paid Mr Marks's expenses in what was apparently an effort to sabotage Australia's trade? Was it the Government or the unions? This is all part of a response by this Government to Australia's critical balance of trade. I refer now to the Budget. The Prime Minister, in his address to the nation in June, announced the small exporters scheme and the high technology exporters scheme. As a result of the Budget the new small exporters scheme is now redundant, the high technology exporters scheme has a minuscule budget of $1m and will help only a handful of high technology exporters, the mixed credit scheme operated by Austrade has had its budget reduced and the overall expenditure on export development schemes has declined massively to $92m-a move which will not enthuse exporters. During the last three years of coalition government export incentives averaged $267m. As a result of the Budget it is anticipated that Austrade will close its offices in Bahrain, Dubai and Kuwait. In this respect Australia's trade in the Middle East has been decreasing. It reached a peak of $115m in 1984 and amounted to just over $80m in 1985. The Government's response is to close these Austrade offices at a time when the United States is very happy indeed to step into those markets. This was indicated in a report that suggested that a $200,000 study had been commissioned in the United States to seek market opportunities for United States sheep meat in the Middle East. Yet we are deserting those markets for others at a time of a national trade crisis. Also as a result of the Budget, the Government has lifted the ban on sales of uranium to France in order to sell its $66m stockpile. Ironically, this would make this socialist Government one of the biggest traders in yellowcake in the world. Yet still banned are exports of uranium to other countries. This is holding up exports from Australian mines such as Pancontinental's Jabiluka and Denison's Koongarra. Mr Howard —It is a double standard. They would not be guilty of that. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Absolutely. It is a double standard and I think we all know of the tragic results over the last few years. 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 Cohen-I require the question to be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(3.45) —I was talking about the potential for uranium in Australia. The freezing of the reserves in Jabiluka and Koongarra is holding back an export potential of some billions of dollars. At a time when this trade is required we see the double standards of allowing some trade and not others. This uranium, worth some $40 billion could go a long way to redressing our imbalance of trade. It has been said that our most valuable export on the high seas is the export of uranium through Darwin. This great opportunity and the markets that are attached to it are being lost. In the last few months, with these appalling trade figures, the Labor Government's economic chickens have come home to roost. At a time of trade crisis Australia has been poised on the verge of industrial anarchy, our dollar has been in free-fall and the Government has had no obvious response. This is the result of Labor having misused the benefits of the international economic upturn, the breaking of the drought and the coalition's wage pause to embark on a public spending binge. Labor created one new public employee for every three in private enterprise but it lost 100,000 jobs in Australia's rural and mining sectors. The Government has talked about the corruption in the international markets by the United States and the European Community but at home it has been corrupting domestic markets. Meanwhile, Labor's policies on capital taxation, interest rates and wages have been progressively making Australia uncompetitive compared with other international traders. Labor's recent fringe benefits tax and foreign tax credit schemes have exacerbated the situation for Australian traders. These measures, it has been suggested, represent the politics of envy and policies of hate against Australia's productive sector. The increase in taxation to a record high of 25.5 per cent of gross domestic product, the lack of cuts in government expenditure and programs and the rubbery growth figures contained in this week's Budget will be a constant restraint on Australia's export sector. Last Tuesday all Australians were asked to make sacrifices, whether it was in pensions, more tax, a transfer of costs to them or a reduction in their standard of living. The productive sector has had to share in these sacrifices with additional fuel costs, the fringe benefits tax and the increase in taxation itself. With all this we have not had the guarantee of success in the Budget which should have been given by the Treasurer and as a result, all Australians are likely to suffer not just a temporary reduction but a permanent reduction in their living standards. This matter can be addressed only by the Government following the attitude that was taken last night by the Leader of the Opposition in calling for a new direction-a new direction on the industrial front, a new direction in public expenditure and a new direction in the tax reform system. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —We have just heard a very spiteful and negative little speech from the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite). Nowhere in that speech could I detect any suggestions as to the Opposition's alternative analysis of the problem that confronts us or, indeed, an alternative solution to the problem. Merely to round off the speech by saying that we ought to be following that deranged program which was presented to the House and the nation last night by the temporary Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), quite frankly, will not convince anybody that the honourable member for Dawson has any ideas about anything relating to the problems confronting our external account. This Government has been entirely frank about the problems confronting us. Some people would say that it has been too frank, but we think it is important to take into the nation's confidence the problems which confront us. They are extraordinarily serious problems. However, it is a question of whether or not one wants to make some sort of simplistic assessment that all of the problems confronting us externally are created by this Government. Of course, the narrow-minded view of the Opposition is that it would like to pretend that all of the problems, including the current account deficit problem we confront now and which we will confront for some time into the future, are the result of policies this Government has been pursuing. Mr Brumby —Nothing could be further from the truth. Mr DAWKINS —As the honourable member for Bendigo said, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, this Government was pursuing economic policies which were entirely consistent with the circumstances confronting us when those policies were put into effect. What has happened, however, is that there has been a dramatic change in relation to what the world is prepared to pay us for the goods we export and the prices we are required to pay to the rest of the world for the goods we need in this country. I refer the honourable member for Dawson to the handy little document entitled `Guide to the 1986-87 Commonwealth Budget'. Being a member of the National Party of Australia he would probably prefer to see it in pictorial rather than written form. Page 1 contains a very graphic drawing of what has been happening to our terms of trade over the last five or six years. If he looks at that, he will see that there has been an extraordinary decline from an index of 100 in 1983-84 to about 84 in 1985-86. That is a 16 per cent decline over a period of just over a couple of years. That is a dramatic decline. It is the case that over about the past 30 years there has been a gradual decline in Australia's terms of trade, but nothing like the collapse that has occurred in the past couple of years and, most spectacularly, in the last year. It does not matter what flights of fancy the honourable member for Dawson might have-he cannot under any circumstances whatsoever say that this Government is responsible for the prices the world is prepared to pay us for our agricultural commodities and the products of our mining industry. He cannot say that this is something that we have brought upon ourselves. If we are going to go into the business of sheeting home blame to particular political parties in relation to our ability to cope with this problem, I would like to say that the totally inappropriate policies pursued by coalition governments over some 27 years were really the cause of the problem in terms of our response to this situation. They allowed our manufacturing industry to become increasingly uncompetitive and inefficient because of their mad-headed protectionist policies. They tried to cocoon Australian manufacturing industry to such an extent that it had regard only for the local, small Australian markets. They did not encourage industry to be competitive with the rest of the world and to look for the emerging marketing opportunities for their products in the rest of the world. Consequently, as a result of policies quite deliberately pursued and, as the honourable member for Dawson knows, quite deliberately advocated by former leaders of his Party, manufacturing industry has not been able to respond as quickly as we would have hoped to these current problems. That was all magnified and exacerbated by the high currency policies pursued by the current Leader of the Opposition. I do not intend to be lectured by the honourable member for Dawson or the Leader of the Opposition about appropriate policies for dealing with our external situation when they pursued policies for nearly 30 years which were totally inimical to Australia getting out of these problems by expanding its export base. Other countries, which might be important agricultural and mining producers, have used the opportunities of the last 20 years or so, when the trade in manufactures was expanding, to diversify their trade. For instance, there was a time about 30 years ago when about 80 per cent of Canada's exports came from its mining and agricultural sectors. That is now down to 50 per cent, whereas in Australia the contribution made by mining and agriculture is still 80 per cent. Of course, it was our predecessors who ignored the opportunities and pursued totally wrong-headed policies in terms of trying to expand our manufactures and services industries and take advantage of the new and emerging trade opportunities for Australia in the region. Under the period of that Government our share of the regional and Japanese markets gradually declined. Our most important trading partner was being ignored by that Government which was totally oblivious to the changing relationship which was occurring between Australia, Japan and the rest of our region. What we have done and will continue to do is take a realistic view about our opportunities and the changes that will need to occur if Australia is to trade its way out of this problem, which the Government has accepted on many occasions is very serious and will not be turned around overnight. The honourable member for Dawson spent some time referring to the low value of the Australian dollar. It was his Government's policy of artificially maintaining a high value of the Australian dollar which destroyed manufacturing industry and the incomes of the agricultural sector. It made exporting much harder and importing much more attractive. After years of maintaining the value of the Australian dollar at a high level, ostensibly for anti-inflationary policies, the whole basis and export capacity of our economy was massively distorted. Over the past three years we have been trying to correct the imbalances which were capriciously and deliberately pursued by our predecessors. The honourable member for Dawson blithely overlooked the problems that are confronting the agricultural markets around the world. He blames us for the fact that the price of wheat has gone down from $140 a tonne not so long ago to about $80 a tonne. How on earth can he blame us for that? Mr Braithwaite —I did not blame you for it-I blamed you for the domestic economy. Mr DAWKINS —Of course the honourable member blamed us for that, because he failed to give us any proper analysis of the problem. All the honourable member could talk about was wages; he is completely obsessed by the question. In fact, if he were to look at our wages result and compare it with that of most of the other industrialised countries, he would see that we have been performing better than, or at least equal to, most of them. Our competitive position on wage costs has improved massively, not only as a result of the devaluation but also as a result of the substantially reduced real labour costs in this economy as a whole. As a result of the wages policy pursued by this Government, we now have real labour costs down to the level they were during the late 1960s before the wages explosions of the 1970s and the early 1980s when the Fraser Government decided to pursue its crazy policy of abandoning the centralised wage fixation system. In 1981-82 we had a 16 per cent increase in wages as a result of the policies pursued then-policies which the Opposition is now threatening to impose on the economy if it gets a chance to do so. We have been using our centralised wages system, which I accept is unique in the world, to work for us, not against us. We have been getting a better wages outcome than Britain and Japan and we are at least equal to that of the United States of America. Rather than tearing up our centralised system and leaving the nation to vagaries and total uncertainties, we have been able to make it work for us. The only certainty is that the Opposition policies were an absolute disaster when they were used before. It was a disaster from which we have been gradually recovering as a result of the policies of this Government. The honourable member for Dawson, quite bereft of anything sensible to say, decided to focus on a couple of trivial issues in an attempt, quite deliberately, to sabotage the efforts which I have quite properly been making to streamline and improve our trading performance and the facilities that we provide to our exporters. He talks about the fact that Austrade decided to restructure some of its overseas posts, particularly in the Middle East. One of the major purposes of establishing Austrade was to give that organisation the capacity and flexibility to redefine where it should have its resources. Under the old arrangements, which were supported by our predecessors for however many years, if Austrade wanted to close a post it had to give up the resources, the money and the staff that went with it. It had to argue anew to the Department of Finance and to the Cabinet if it wanted to open a new post. We have given Austrade the capacity to consider where its resources are deployed around the world. Everybody knows-in fairness, I suspect that even the honourable member for Dawson knows this, if he were prepared to say so-that we have had too many resources in some parts of the world, which have been frozen because it has been so hard to move them, and too few resources in markets that are really important to us. We have too many resources in Europe and North America and certainly too few in other regions. Austrade has embarked upon a restructuring of its overseas posts, and what it has done in the Middle East is just the beginning of what it will be doing more substantially around the world. I commend Austrade on taking this action. It is important at a time when we have limited financial capacity to provide these very expensive posts overseas that the posts should be in the most strategically important places and in markets which are most prospective for us. We have not abandoned the Middle East. Instead, we have centralised the operation in the most prospective and most efficiently managed posts, which is the part of the Middle East which allows us most efficiently to manage our services in the area. The honourable gentleman mentioned Jack Marks and his accompanying me to Japan. I do not know who told him that Jack Marks was an embarrassment. Whoever it was clearly does not share my view of the contribution which he made, or the view expressed by the delegation whilst we were there. There were four representatives of the coal industry and the iron ore industry who accompanied me, and the five of us signed a statement which talked about the importance of reliability of supply in terms of maintaining and expanding our markets in Japan. All of the four who accompanied me said that the exercise had been extremely worth while and that it was useful to have Jack Marks with us at the time that Peko-Wallsend Ltd was going on its mad adventure that was based on how it would restructure the Robe River operation. Jack Marks was able to explain to the Japanese partners in the Robe River operation the industrial relations realities in Australia and the contributions that the unions would be prepared to make to addressing the problems which Peko-Wallsend had identified. He was positive about that and helpful to Mitsui. Jack Marks and I met Mr Ejiri, the head of Mitsui, and we were able to explain matters. There is no doubt that Mitsui found it very useful to have that firsthand view of the situation. Meanwhile, Jack Marks phoned back to the Pilbara to say that if the ships off Cape Lambert waiting to load from Robe River were not going to be able to load, they would be redirected to Port Hedland, where Mount Newman Mines could load them. That has now been agreed, and that will happen as a result of the co-operative approach of the unions and the leadership of Jack Marks. I have nothing but commendation for him in the role that he played in that exercise. I think that the other members of the delegation, if asked, would agree with that. I had the opportunity to talk to Mr Mitra and we agreed about the great prospects for improving the trade in livestock. He never said that he would come to Cairns. He said that it was important that the Philippines should be represented, and it will be. If this is the problem for the Philippines, I shall take it up with the representatives of the Philippines. This question was not raised with me by Mr Mitra in the terms that the honourable member for Dawson has proposed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The time for the debate has expired. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo) —I present the twelfth report from the Publications Committee, sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report have been circulated to honourable members. Report-by leave-adopted. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 2, clause 5, lines 3 to 11, leave out the clause. No. 2-Page 2, sub-clause 7 (3), line 25, after `law', insert, `during the period of 30 years after the commencement'. No. 3-Page 2, sub-clause 7 (4), lines 38 to 40, leave out the sub-clause, insert the following sub-clause: `(4) Notwithstanding any other law, a person is not entitled to have access to, or to make use of- (a) a class A document after the end of the period of 30 years after the commencement; or (b) a class B document at any time, except in accordance with the written authority of the Presiding Officers.'. No. 4-Page 3, clause 8, lines 15 to 27, leave out the clause, insert the following clause: `8. (1) A person who is, or has at any time been, a member of the Commission, a member of the staff of the Commission or counsel assisting the Commission shall not, directly or indirectly, disclose to any other person or make use of any document or information to which the first-mentioned person has had access by reason of being or having been such a member or counsel. Penalty: $5 000 or imprisonment for 6 months, or both. `(2) Sub-section (1) does not prevent or hinder- (a) the performance of any act otherwise authorised by this Act or the repealed Act as continued in effect by this Act; or (b) the participation of a person in any investigation undertaken by a person or organisation referred to in section 7, or any proceedings, in which use is made of information or documents referred to in section 7. `(3) Sub-section (1) does not apply in relation to anything done in accordance with an authority given under sub-section 7 (4).'. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.07) —I should like to indicate to the Committee that the Government proposes that amendment Nos 1 to 3 be agreed to and that a new amendment, as an alternative to amendment No. 4, be agreed to. It may suit the convenience of the Committee first to consider amendments Nos 1 to 3, and when those amendments have been disposed of, consider amendment No. 4. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Ruddock) —Is that proposal acceptable? There being no objection, that course will be followed. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I move: That amendments Nos 1 to 3 be agreed to. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(4.08) —I want to say a few things about the amendments which are before us and the Government's handling of this whole issue, which has been muddled, incompetent and evasive. The Government amendment, which was proposed in the Senate and is now amendment No. 3, was supposedly inserted as a result of an oversight. That is the amendment which allows one to read a class A document after the expiry of 30 years-a class A document, of course, does not concern Mr Justice Murphy in any way-so long as one has the written authority of the Presiding Officers. We made the point in detail that the purpose of a class A provision was to bury those documents. In the Senate, Senator Evans said: It was an oversight in the drafting to leave it- that is, clause 7- completely open ended. It was not the intention really to do that forever. It was appropriate that archival rules apply, and an amendment relating to that has been circulated. Archival rules do not apply, and in the drafting of the legislation it is impossible to see how that matter could have been misunderstood. I understand that Senator `It-seemed-Like-A-Good-Idea-At-The-Time' Evans was involved in the drafting. There was a meeting of the Legislative Committee on the Tuesday night and advisers from the Attorney-General's Department would have been there. The Attorney-General himself would have been there. Clause 7 (3) (a) as it stood was completely open-ended. I pointed that out in my speech in this House on Wednesday. I returned to it in Question Time on Thursday. I asked then: Is there any precedent for providing by an Act of this Parliament that information before a commission of inquiry established by this Parliament . . . should be denied forever examination by the public . . .? It cannot be said that the Government did not know what we were saying. It cannot be said that our criticisms were not clear or were not plain. When the Attorney-General answered my question he made no reference to the open-ended period. There was no reference to an oversight. When he answered my speech in the second reading debate, when he closed the debate on Wednesday, he said nothing about the criticisms that I have made about burial of material in perpetuity. What has happened to change the Government's mind? There was no oversight. It is impossible for the Government and its advisers not to have understood what it was doing, incompetent though they have proved to be at every stage of this saga. The Government was reacting to an outcry by the media and a number of senior legal commentators. Its reaction is no more than characteristic of the Government's handling of the whole matter ever since this unfortunate series of events came before the House many months ago. At this stage, I also point out that the Opposition said at the outset that section 72 should be given a wide interpretation. Senator Gareth Evans and the Government said no, that was quite wrong and that it should be given a narrow interpretation. The Opposition's views have been vindicated by the opinions of the three commissioners published yesterday. The Attorney- General, when he was speaking in this House, said-and I recall it with a certain irony: I hope that for the first time the honourable member for North Sydney will at least read the legislation-it is there-and understand that the Commission would be able to do its duty, and perhaps would have done it in accordance with either section 18 or section 34. He was there referring to some criticisms that I will come back to when we deal with the second matter, as to what would happen to material in the hands of the Government. I ask the question: Who failed to read the legislation? It is perfectly astonishing that such a simple Bill on such an important matter should be presented in such an extraordinarily incompetent manner, because not only was there a further amendment in the Senate, but we are today going to see even a further amendment to that Bill which was presented to me for the first time at 10 minutes past 12 today. Having said that, there is nothing further we wish to say about these amendments. We do not intend to propose our own amendments again for the very good reason that they do not have the support, save in limited exceptions, of the Australian Democrats; so that would be a perfectly futile course. It is perfectly plain that even with the amendment that we now have, the material which is in the hands of the Commission, that is, that which has been generated within the Commission itself and which will be handed over, will be buried for a very long time indeed. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.12) —I do not want to delay the debate, but I just make the point that the significant part of the amendment which the honourable gentleman now agrees to provides that the appropriate documents that might fall within this category certainly will be under the archival limitation of 30 years which, of course, was one of the issues that were not really discussed. The issue at the time of the debate was whether they should be made available now. That was the Government's objection. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.13) —I move: That the Senate's Amendment No. 4 be disagreed to, but that, in place thereof, clause 8 be omitted and the following clause substituted in the Bill: ``8. (1) A person shall not publish, or otherwise disclose to any other person, the whole or any part of a class A document that has been prepared by the Commission, the staff of the Commission, or counsel assisting the Commission. Penalty: (a) where the defendant is a natural person-$5,000 or imprisonment for 6 months, or both; or (b) where the defendant is a corporation-$100,000. ``(2) Sub-section (1) does not apply in relation to anything done- (a) in accordance with an authority given under sub-section 7 (4); or (b) for the purposes of any proceedings for an offence against sub-section (1). ``(3) In this section, `class A document' has the same meaning as in section 7.''. Briefly, the original clause 8, which has been objected to by the Senate, was an effort to prevent disclosure by any person relating to an allegation that might have been before the Commission. The Senate has amended that in a most unusual way by suggesting that any member of the Commission or any member of the staff of the Commission or counsel assisting the Commission who makes such disclosures shall be liable. It is very much like suggesting that one should shoot the gamekeeper instead of the poacher, because it means that everybody else will not be liable. I do not think even the members of the Opposition here today would agree that that was really the intention. The issue surely was what we want to do in terms of people who disclose material which there has been no opportunity to test by way of evidence, but which, of course, arose within the Commission. Let me make it very clear. In our view, the Senate Opposition amendment does not deal with the problem at all. I make the point that it attempts to punish the commissioners themselves, their staff or counsel assisting the Commission and nobody else. The history of this matter is that there were unique terms of reference. Honourable members will recall that the inquiry was to be in camera and, in the light of the tragic developments concerning Mr Justice Murphy's health, about which medical evidence has now been tendered, allegations prepared in the Commission will never be tested. Indeed, the Commission has not at this stage, as far as the members of the Commission are concerned, even begun to examine whether they have any foundation at all. All that has happened is that a purely legal ruling has been made on the meaning of proved misbehaviour, which was the subject of counsel's submissions. As stated in the second reading speech it would be unconscionable and oppressive to allow any part of untested allegations prepared in the Commission to be circulated. It also would be, in the terms of the Commission itself, tantamount to hounding a dying person, and certainly a grave injustice to that person's family. The amendment that the Government is now moving to clause 8 proposes to add a new sub-section (1) which will deal with the problem. I point out that the amendment is limited to documents that were prepared by the Commission, the staff of the Commission or counsel assisting the Commission relating to conduct by Mr Justice Murphy. It does not apply to documents prepared by other persons that were received or obtained by the Commission. Any steps that persons who have supplied any information or document to the Commission wish to take to supply that information or document to other persons is also not covered. The amendment will eliminate the singling out of the members of the Commission, their staff and counsel as being the object at which the Senate's amendment is aimed. I want to make this a matter of record. We have had advice from the Secretary of the Commission that all members of the Commission consider the Opposition's amendment-I know that it was moved in the Senate-as grossly offensive to persons associated with the Commission, and I can understand that. The Senate appears to have been misled by the Opposition into believing that the secrecy provision singling out members of the Commission had a precedent in Commonwealth legislation. There is no such precedent for this; it is totally wrong. The Royal Commissions Act has no such secrecy provision, contrary to what was submitted to the Senate. The very Act constituting the Commission itself contains no such provision. I just want to leave it at that. One other matter that does concern me relates to this clause and the misinterpretation of it on the basis that there would be a coverup, that documents submitted to the Commission might never be able to be recovered or given to the appropriate law enforcement agencies. I again draw attention to the fact that the original legislation had provision, in sub-section 18 (2), for documents to be returned on request; and certainly the provisions under section 34 enabled the Commission to take action and give documents to other law enforcement agencies where there was some suggestion of criminal activity. All that has been dealt with. What we are about here is basically the allegations that might relate to conduct which have not been tested and could well be published, which could be most damaging, unfair and contrary to natural justice. That is the issue that we are anxious to project. Let me again endeavour to correct the Sydney Morning Herald which was anxious to refer to a Murphy coverup in an editorial on Thursday. The editorial said: The bill to repeal that Act goes one step further. It prevents evidence given by a witness before the commission being used in any court proceedings, not just proceedings against the witness. It is a matter of record that no evidence was given. It is also well known that any witness in the future can still do what he or she wants to do from the point of view of making allegations. I make this point and I hope that the newspaper corrects it: The record given to the Presiding Officers clearly shows that there was no evidence tendered by any witness. Having said that, there is no justification to suggest that there would be a coverup or that evidence given by a witness could not be given elsewhere. The real issue is that Mr Justice Murphy is dying, he has a very limited life expectancy and on that basis it is only fair and reasonable that allegations which there has been no opportunity to test or rebut should not be published. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(4.19) —The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) pointed out that the terms of reference here are unique and that there is no precedent for what we have before us. That is certainly so. The Attorney-General said that really it is offensive that there should be a provision which is directed towards the Commission and members of its staff. No offence was, of course, intended, but what the Attorney-General does not say is that the provision which is now before the Committee is in fact a provision which applies to the Commission, to the members of its staff and to everyone else. We sought to confine the operation of this extraordinary provision, bearing in mind that from the outset we opposed the inquiry being conducted in secret, to a narrow group of people. Of course we do not believe that the commissioners under any circumstances would improperly divulge information. There is no parallel for this case, so it does not do the Attorney-General much good to refer to the Royal Commissions Act. If there is to be a secrecy provision at all in such a unique case, we must look to the material itself and ask: `How do we confine this?'. If the Attorney-General wants analogies to people holding high positions in our system, one can go to the National Crime Authority Act, the Human Rights Commission Act, the Ombudsman Act, the National Companies and Securities Commission Act, the Income Tax Assessment Act and the Government's own recent Australian Bill of Rights Bill and Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill to see how persons holding high authority are brought within the confines of confidential or secrecy provisions. This Commission has been set up by the Government when forced to do so under extraordinary circumstances and with extraordinary terms of reference. We have it that no evidence has been tendered. Therefore, the Government discards one of the provisions that it put into its own Bill, which is simply another mark of its incompetence. What the Government now proposes is perfectly astonishing. The Government's amendment states: A person shall not publish, or otherwise disclose to any other person, the whole or any part of a class A document that has been prepared by the Commission, the staff of the Commission, or counsel assisting the Commission. The effect of this amendment is to prohibit the publication or disclosure from one person to another of the whole or part of a class A document. Consequently, if the Commission has already passed to law enforcement agencies material prepared within the Commission in respect of which criminal action against third persons may arise, once this Bill becomes an Act, the persons in the law enforcement agencies who have received those documents will be prohibited from disclosing such documents to other police officers or publishing them for any other purposes. Effectively, if documents generated from within the Commission have been passed over to the law enforcement agency, and if those documents concern Mr Justice Murphy in any way at all-not just if they contain direct allegations against him, but so long as he is concerned in these documents-the police are straitjacketed. Is it not perfectly ironic, therefore, that what is proposed in relation to Commission generated documents negates entirely anything that may have been done under section 34 of the Act and renders meaningless the assurance given yesterday by Senator Gareth Evans? He said: So far as the Commission's capacity itself to pass on to law enforcement agencies material not originated from such agencies, but perhaps turning up in the course of documentary submissions made by other people, the Commission has the capacity under section 34 of the present Act to communicate such as it thinks appropriate of that material to law enforcement agencies. Any documents compiled or prepared by the Commission and passed on to law enforcement agencies cannot be used as a consequence of this brilliant proposal from the Government. The problem posed by the Government's proposals do not arise under the Opposition's amendments, which were put up in the Senate and rejected. Those amendments provided for an orderly, thoughtful and timely examination and disposition of the material which, by our amendment to clause 8, which is now provided, would strictly confine the operation of the clause to those who were involved in the conduct of the Commission. To return to what the Attorney-General said about secrecy, we do not propose that the world at large be prohibited in the way that the Attorney-General does; we propose a provision confined simply to those who were involved. It is certainly not intended to be offensive to the Commission, no more than the provisions in the Acts to which I have referred are intended to be offensive to high officers who are caught by those provisions. Let me say something about the question of cover-up which the Attorney-General has raised, and something about the conduct of the Commission and how the proposal before the House would affect matters. The work of the Commission was to obtain documents from various sources, to make its own investigations and inquiries, and to prepare its own documents, including summaries of relevant issues and events. In all probability, a vast bulk of documents has been accumulated, many generated within the Commission and by its own efforts. Senator Gareth Evans said: I refer also to internal analysis of those allegations- he was referring to the list of 14 already prepared- and the cross-referencing of material, and the products of such investigation and information gathering as has been initiated or generated from within the Commission . . . I have no idea how much of that material exists but I am sure that by now, after several weeks of operation and the Commission having got to the stage of its report that it has, there is quite a bulk of that material. That is material generated from within the Commission. We know that the material before the Commission was so great in bulk that it was estimated that four months would be taken up with the hearing of evidence in relation to allegations formulated in early August. We can assume that the material before the Commission may well have included fresh evidence and fresh information which, as well as concerning Mr Justice Murphy-I am not here concerned with him-may have quite separately concerned others, including those prominent in New South Wales politics. That evidence might relate to material already gathered and generated before the Commission. In sum, in all probability a large bulk of Commission generated information exists. If the Commission can no longer send any of its own material to law enforcement officers, that is a great shackle upon what it can do. Worse, if this amendment is passed, the consequence will be that so far as the Commission has sent Commission generated material to law enforcement officers, they will be prohibited from using that material. It says: A person shall not publish, or otherwise disclose to any other person, the whole or any part of a class A document . . . I wish to make it plain that when I talk about Commission generated material, I mean that the prohibition under the Government's proposal relates to class A documents. But many class A documents generated within the Commission may well concern others as well as Mr Justice Murphy and may be directly relevant to law enforcement. The Opposition was concerned to ensure that the Commission had adequate time and facilities to examine the material before it for a secondary purpose-that is, to refer relevant material to law enforcement authorities, as section 34 of the Act contemplated. It was also our concern to ensure that fair protection be given to Mr Justice Murphy against allegations that he had not had the opportunity to meet, hence the Archives Act proposal. We did not propose that any material be thrown out into the public forum. We proposed that it be dealt with properly and that material that was not sent to law enforcement agencies should be dealt with under the provisions of the Archives Act, but those amendments were rejected in the Senate by the Government. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.30) —Just briefly in reply, I want to make the point that the big issue we are concerned about is that of a man dying. Allegations having been prepared from within the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry itself, an effort has been made by the Government, in the interests of justice, to prevent those allegations being published because there has been no evidence to substantiate them and no opportunity to contradict them. It is acknowledged that there may well have been other documents given to the Commission. I make the point again that those documents would have been returned under section 18 (2) to anybody who so requests them. If the Commission obtained criminal intelligence that related to other matters, it would have passed the information on to any other law enforcement agency pursuant to section 34 of the original Act. So it follows that what the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) is about is going to happen, that there is going to be some suggestion of a criminal act which is going to be forever prevented from being able to be investigated. All those other agencies would have had and will have the opportunity to investigate any matter. It would also follow, I would think, that if there is criminal intelligence available to them now they will be carrying out their own investigations and, of course, will be able to accumulate whatever evidence is necessary. In this case we have before us the opportunity to do something to assist Mr Justice Murphy in his particular difficulty of being unable to answer allegations for which there has been no substantiation. Members of the Opposition have generally held the attitude that people who have served in Parliament should never be appointed to the High Court of Australia. This is a little bit unusual now. I do not know whether this is the view of the honourable member for North Sydney. Certainly it is the view of the Opposition as announced by the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair). I also think it is unfair to be continuing the media suggestion that there is a cover-up; there is no cover-up. The issue here developed in an unusual way from within the High Court itself. That is the position. There have been a series of trials; there has been an acquittal; and there has been a continual investigation of allegations for some 2 1/2 years. I do not want to delay the Committee any more, but the issue is one of whether there was something by way of misconduct. The Government set up the Commission to advise the Parliament as to what might be misbehaviour. If honourable members read the recommendations from the commissioners, they will see that it will be left to future parliaments, in accordance with fairness, to determine such matters. So it will not be left to anybody outside. Perhaps a parliament of the future that is faced with a difficulty similar to that which we have been endeavouring to deal with here will at least deal with the evidence fairly. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(4.33) —There is one thing that I want to make perfectly plain: The proposals that we put up to the Senate provided, as the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) will understand, that insofar as material was not passed out to law enforcement agencies or returned to the National Crime Authority it should be dealt with in a particular way which would have prevented allegations against Mr Justice Murphy from being passed into the public arena. We did that because we thought it was fair to him to do just that. Nobody wants to have untested allegations concerning a man simply thrown out into the public arena, and especially a person who is in a state of grievous ill-health. What the Attorney-General has said is that all we are concerned about here is allegations. That is not what we are concerned about. What we are concerned about here is material that neither the Attorney-General nor I have seen-material which is called class A material, which is material that concerns Mr Justice Murphy. Let me quote the precise words in the Bill: `Class A document' means a document referred to in sub-section (1) that contains material relating to the conduct of the Honourable Lionel Keith Murphy; It can also contain material relating to the conduct of others. The Attorney-General says that we are only dealing with allegations. We are not only dealing with allegations; we are also dealing with the Commission generated documents which would relate, in general terms, to Mr Justice Murphy because that was the charter that the Commission had. What we are concerned about is to ensure that they are properly disposed of, including being handed over to law enforcement agencies. A couple of days ago the Attorney-General asked: `How can you cover-up when the Commission itself, having examined the documents, is entitled and able to give the documents to the appropriate law enforcement authority?'. I reiterate that the work of referral of matters relevant to criminal investigations was secondary to the prime task of the Commission; that anyone with the least practical experience in the conduct of investigations involving a vast bulk of material, such as the present one obviously does, would understand that the closest of analysis is required to pick out everything that may be relevant to the establishment of criminal offences; and that the amendments we proposed would have given the Commission the powers and the time to do whatever was necessary in the public interest to ensure that all material that may be relevant to criminal investigations was handed over to the appropriate law enforcement authorities. We do not know, nor can you, Mr Attorney-General, know the details of the matters being examined by the Commission. We do not know the nature of fresh material that the Commission may have unearthed, as Senator Evans's own statement, which I quoted a few minutes ago, simply confirms. But we do know, because Senator Evans has told us, that material received from persons outside law enforcement agencies is being returned. Senator Evans said: No copies of that material are being kept. By haste, by refusing to give the Commission adequate powers to dispose of all its material, as our amendments would have given it, the time to consider where the material should go and the time closely to analyse it, the Government runs the risk that material relevant to criminal investigations-and we know from Senator Evans's statement that some has already been referred, I understand, to law enforcement authorities-may be lost forever. This seems to be a risk that the Government is not only willing to take but seems eager to embrace. The Attorney-General says that the Government set this Commission up. That is true. It set it up in response to a vast prompting and to a surge in public opinion. The Attorney-General established the Government's own inquiry. In section 34 the Government provided specifically that the Commission should have power to refer material to law enforcement agencies. I repeat that if one goes to section 34 one sees that the Government in its legislation has nominated law enforcement agencies, the Attorney-General's and others, as being the recipients of information and documents to which the Commission may refer for the prosecution or the possible prosecution of offenders. I remind the Attorney-General once again that when he looks to the definition of a class A document he will see that it is a document that contains material relating to Mr Justice Murphy. So far as documents have been generated in the Commission which are class A documents and which also contain material relating to possible criminal offences by others, those documents, if they have been handed over to law enforcement agencies, cannot be published or otherwise disclosed by any person who has received them. That effectively means that the law enforcement agencies cannot use them. The bumbling and the squalid handling by the Government of the whole issue over many months has been marked by an abdication throughout of constitutional responsibility and by a lack of understanding of the issues involved. The Opposition has never, at any time, persecuted Mr Justice Murphy. We have at all times upheld the Constitution and that is where the difference lies between the Government and the Opposition. I will conclude with a quotation from the Sydney Morning Herald which sums up this Government and the way in which it has gone about this whole matter over many months and years. The article states: That is why the Federal Government's action, in one swift stroke, of terminating the inquiry and burying its remains will not be seen by history as simply an act of compassion and propriety to one man. It will be recognised as yet another attempt to delay the full examination of questions concerning the health of basic institutions-the courts and parliament-in NSW; questions which have demanded answers for almost three years since the NSW Police tapes first came to light. Let us have no humbug about simple concern for the position of one man. We all have a concern for his position and for his health. But the Government has never had a concern worth a damn for the Constitution except when it was forced by public opinion to confront issues-but not until it was forced-and nor will it do it in the future because it is incapable of coming to grips with issues of constitutional principle if those issues may in any way be contrary to what the Government believes to be in its political interests. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.41) —Let me make it quite clear that, if there is any suggestion of any criminal activity anywhere else, that intelligence would have been already passed over pursuant to section 34 of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry Act and there would be no restriction or inhibition. Those law enforcement agencies can continue with that investigation. All other documents have been returned. What we are left with here is this extraordinary action. There is an attempt to suggest that there can be publication of allegations. The amendment moved in the Senate by the Opposition does nothing to prevent that. It is for that reason that we have to move this amendment-to protect the innocence of a man in respect of whom there has been no conviction, only allegations. I want to emphasise that. From a constitutional point of view, I just say to the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) that he had a remarkable change of heart between 29 April, when he said that he would not pursue the constitutional issue, and 8 May-- Mr Spender —That is not what I said and you know it. I have corrected you once and I will do it again. You should learn to read and to report what I do say. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I have read into the record the fact that on 29 April the honourable member for North Sydney made a statement saying that he would not pursue that constitutional issue. On 8 May he had changed his mind. Mr Spender —What constitutional issue are you talking about now? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am talking about any issue that the honourable member had in mind on 29 April-pursuant to section 72 of the Constitution, he said. On 8 May he changed his mind. He has the problem; we have not. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolutions reported; report adopted. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall be brief. I claim to have been misrepresented and wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — The honourable member may proceed. Mr SPENDER —I claim to have been misrepresented and misrepresented again on the same issue. The release to which the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) referred refers specifically to issues that had been dealt with at the trial. We said plainly that we would not pursue any matter under section 72 of the Constitution that would involve in effect a retrial of the very issue on which the jury had tried Mr Justice Murphy. It did not go any wider than that. House adjourned at 4.44 p.m. until Tuesday, 16 September 1986 at 2 p.m., in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 22 August 1986: Air Navigation (Charges) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 211. Australian Citizenship Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, Nos. 209, 210. Bounty (Steel Mill Products) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 214. Customs Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 215. National Health Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 208. Passports Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 212. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Ordinances-1986- No. 40-Co-operative Societies (Amendment) (No. 3). No. 41-Liquor (Amendment). No. 42-Poker Machine Control (Amendment). No. 43-Rabbit Destruction (Amendment). No. 44-Real Property (Amendment). No. 45-Stock (Amendment). Regulations-1986- No. 11 (Rabbit Destruction Ordinance). No. 12 (Poker Machine Control Ordinance). The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 2350) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 12 November 1985: (1) What was the expenditure by the Minister's Department and authorities under the Minister's control on advertising (other than classified newspaper advertising) by individual subject or program in (a) 1983-84 and (b) 1984-85. (2) Who (a) initiated and (b) conducted each campaign. (3) Why was each campaign necessary. (4) What was the basis of remuneration for each campaign. (5) Was the assistance of the (a) Information Co-ordination Branch or (b) Australian Government Advertising Service obtained. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: In answering this question advertising has been defined as a sustained period of advertising or one involving substantial cost (more than $5000) directed towards a central issue; public notices or advertising relating to the normal operations of the portfolio have not been included. Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment (1) Advertising Programs Expenditure (a) 1983-84 (b) 1984-85 $ $ Promotion of National Tree Program and Greening Australia-Television Community Service Announcements... 17,513 - - (2) (a) Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment. (b) Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment. (3) The aim of the above program was to develop public awareness of the value of trees. See also Note 1. (4) Agency fees and television production costs. (5) (a) No. (b) No. Australian Film Commission (1) Advertising Programs Expenditure (a) 1983-84 (b) 1984-85 $ $ Marketing of Australian film industry... 54,376 65,638 (2) (a) Australian Film Commission. (b) Australian Film Commission. (3) The purpose of the advertising program was to promote the Australian film industry through advertisements in market catalogues and business publications. See also Note 1. (4) Design fees, artwork, placement. (5) (a) No. (b) No. Australian National Gallery (1) Advertising Programs Expenditure (a) 1983-84 (b) 1984-85 $ $ Promotion of exhibitions... 166,147 208,202 (2) (a) Australian National Gallery. (b) Australian National Gallery. (3) The purpose of the program was to inform the public of exhibitions at the Australian National Gallery. See also Note 1. (4) Design fees, artwork, placement. (5) (a) No. (b) No. Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service (1) Advertising Programs Expenditure (a) 1983-84 (b) 1984-85 $ $ Advertising related to the proclamation of the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act... 138,617 11,985 (2) (a) Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. (b) Australian Government Advertising Service. (3) The purpose of the program was to inform the travelling public and traders of the major changes in wildlife trade matters resulting from the pending implementation of the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act. See also Note 1. (4) Agency fees, design fees, artwork, placement in the print media. (5) (a) No. (b) Yes. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (1) Advertising Programs Expenditure (a) 1983-84 (b) 1984-85 $ $ Advertising related to development of zoning plans for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park... 6,727 14,220 (2) (a) Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. (b) Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. (3) The advertising was designed to encourage public participation in the development of zoning plans for the Marine Park. See also Note 1. (4) Production and presentation of brochures and a television item. (5) (a) No. (b) No. National Museum of Australia (1) Advertising Programs Expenditure (a) 1983-84 (b) 1984-85 $ $ Four campaigns to seek donations for the National Museum of Australia... . . 6,440 (2) (a) National Museum of Australia. (b) National Museum of Australia. (3) The campaigns were to seek donations of objects to the Museum and to seek information about objects already included in the Museum's collections. See also Note 1. (4) Fees for artwork. (5) (a) No. (b) No. Note 1: The Government's policy is that all Australians have a right to equal access of information. The role of Government information programs, including advertising campaigns, is to inform Australians in the most efficient and cost effective manner of their rights, duties, obligations and responsibilities and matters deemed of national importance. The necessity of an information campaign, such as those listed here, is determined according to these criteria. (Question No. 3275) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 20 February 1986: (1) How many prisoners are receiving unemployment or other benefits in each gaol in Australia. (2) What officers of his Department have authorised these payments. (3) When and how did his Department become aware of the payments. (4) What action did his Department take consequent upon the detection and when was it taken. (5) In how many cases did payments begin when the person receiving the benefit was in gaol and how did this occur. (6) What amount was paid in overpayments to prisoners in each of the years 1981 to 1985. (7) Has he determined whether the New South Wales Government was instrumental in the payment of unemployment benefits to prisoners; if so, how were they involved. (8) What action is he taking to stop payment of unemployment benefits to prisoners. (9) What action has he taken to recover the overpayments. (10) What amount does he expect to recover. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (4) My Department has made arrangements with Authorities in all States and the Northern Territory for the regular supply of details of admissions to prison to prevent the improper payment of social security pensions or benefits to persons in gaol. Persons admitted to gaol from the Australian Capital Territory are listed on New South Wales prison records. (5) I am advised that my Department is unaware of any case in which an incorrect payment was initiated whilst the claimant was in gaol. (6) This information is not available. (7) I am not aware that the Government of New South Wales was instrumental in the payment of unemployment benefit to prisoners and have no information which suggests that it may have had any involvement. (8) See (1) above. (9) Normal recovery practices would apply in relation to amounts of social security assistance incorrectly paid to prisoners. (10) It is not possible to calculate this amount. (Question No. 3428) Mr Hollis asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 19 March 1986: (1) What sum has the Government allocated to research into koalas. (2) What action is the Government taking to protect and restore koala habitats. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Commonwealth Government has provided funds for research on koalas through the research and surveys program which is administered by the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. In 1984-85, a total of $18,300 was made available for the following two projects: Establishment of disease-free koala colony in Queensland. Environmental Factors Affecting the Fertility of Koalas. In the current financial year, Commonwealth funding for the following four projects has totalled $30,000. Studies of the Pathogenesis and epidemiology of Chlamydia psittaci infection in koalas in Queensland. Disease in free-ranging koalas. Koala stress syndrome. Chlamydia psittaci in vitro studies. I am hopeful that further funding for koala research will be made available in the 1986-87 Budget. Funding committed by the Commonwealth to date is in addition to $200,000 donated by American Express International Inc. for the Koala Conservation Program. These funds will be spent over a two-year period on koala research projects and a national koala survey. The Australian Capital Territory and all States where koalas are known to occur are participating with the Commonwealth in the national koala survey which is designed to identify the extent and nature of suitable koala habitat. The relationship between distribution and abundance of koalas and habitat types also will be determined. The results of this survey will provide an essential information base for planning future land use and conservation programs. The level of funding apportioned to the various components of the Koala Conservation Program are determined by the Koala Advisory Committee. The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations has made $73,748 available under the Commonwealth Community Employment Program to employ six persons for 26 weeks to provide support for the national koala survey. (2) Primary responsibility for the management of land and conservation of native wildlife in Australia rests with the State and Territory Governments. It has been apparent during discussions with the States and Territory in which koalas occur that they are fully aware of the importance of a need for habitat protection for koalas in both rural and urban areas. The survey of koala habitat currently being undertaken will make a significant contribution towards identifying those areas of importance for the long term protection of koala populations. (Question No. 3942) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 7 May 1986: What amount was spent by the Minister's Department and Statutory Authorities under the Minister's control on the use of Commonwealth vehicles in 1984-85. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Defence Central ... 3,648,785.00 Regional Offices ... 343,136.00 Service Offices ... 5,366,675.00 9,358,596.00 (Question No. 4076) Mr Reith asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 26 May 1986: (1) How many ``Drug Offensive'' booklets were distributed (a) throughout Australia and (b) in the Electoral Division of Flinders. (2) By whom, when and at what cost were the booklets delivered in the Electoral Division of Flinders. (3) Have there been surveys of the effectiveness of distribution in the Electoral Division of Flinders if so, what were the results. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) 5.4 million; (b) As the distribution through the direct mail company and Australia Post was not broken down on federal electorate boundaries, it is not possible to give numbers for individual electorates. (2) The distribution was undertaken by Salmat Direct Marketing Pty Ltd and Australia Post. The majority of booklets were delivered between 10 and 13 April 1986 at a cost of 4.2 cents a copy. In a few localised instances booklets were delivered after 13 April. (3) A number of check methods were employed on the distribution effectiveness. The direct mail company ran supervisor checks selecting streets at random in various postal sub-sections. A McNair Anderson survey conducted on 25-27 April reported that 91% of respon- dents recalled the booklet. A further McNair Anderson survey conducted during May (6 weeks after distribution of the booklet) reported that 74% of respondents could still recall having seen the booklet. I believe these surveys confirm the successful delivery of the booklet. (Question No. 4083) Mr Sharp asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 27 May 1986: (1) What drug related training and qualifications have drug information phone-in service operators. (2) Will the operators be handling other phone-in contractual work whilst carrying out the ``Drug Offensive'' inquiries. (3) Have surveys been made to determine the effectiveness of the delivery arrangements of the ``Drug Offensive'' booklet. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The National Drug Information Line is a service to provide written information to callers on a range of drugs. It is not a counselling line so that there is no need for operators to have drug-related qualifications. Nonetheless, because of the sensitivity of the National Drug Information Line and the variety of callers to the line, operators undertook training sessions with drug counsellors from Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland, prior to the opening of the Line. All States and Territories provide telephone counsel- ling services staffed by trained and qualified counsellors. The phone numbers of these services can be provided to callers to the National Drug Information Line. (2) Yes, but the National Drug Information Line is the priority contract for the organisation. (3) A number of check methods were employed on the distribution effectiveness. The direct mail company ran supervisor checks selecting streets at random in various postal sub-sections. A McNair Anderson survey conducted on 25-27 April reported that 91% of respon- dents recalled the booklet. A further McNair Anderson survey conducted during May (6 weeks after distribution of the booklet) reported that 74% of respondents could still recall having seen the booklet. I believe these surveys confirm the successful delivery of the booklet. (Question No. 4087) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 27 May 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to media reports expressing fears for the well-being of Soviet dissident Mrs Y. Bonner and her husband, Dr A. Sakharov, when Mrs Bonner returns to the Soviet Union. (2) Is he able to state what conditions Dr Sakharov is currently living under in Gorky and the restrictions the Soviet Government places on him. (3) Will he ensure that Australia continues to maintain diplomatic pressure on the Soviet Union in an attempt to protect the human rights of Dr Sakharov and Mrs Bonner. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. Mrs Bonner returned to Moscow on 2 June and has been reunited with Dr Sakharov in Gorky. Since then there have been no reliable reports of developments affecting their well-being. (2) As access by foreigners to Gorky is not permitted, it is not possible to state with confidence under what conditions Dr Sakharov is living. The principal restriction placed on him by the Soviet authorities is, of course, his exile to Gorky. (3) Australia's concern that the human rights of Dr Sakharov and Mrs Bonner should be protected was expressed directly by me to the then Soviet Foreign Minister, Mr Gromyko, in May 1984. The Government will continue to monitor the situation and take appropriate opportunities to make its views known. (Question No. 4106) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 27 May 1986: What action is being taken to establish a Gallery of Aboriginal Australia within the National Museum of Australia. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Section 5 of the National Museum of Australia Act 1980 provides for the establishment of a Gallery of Aboriginal Australia as a distinct but integral part of the National Museum. In recognition of the importance of the Gallery of Aboriginal Australia, the Council of the National Museum at its second meeting established an Aboriginal Advisory Committee to advise the Council on the planning of the Gallery and all aspects of the Museum relating to Aboriginal people. Formed in 1984, the Aboriginal Advisory Committee has fifteen Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander members. Two of the members of the Committee are also members of the Council of the National Museum. The Aboriginal Advisory Committee has advised the National Museum on an acquisitions policy, sacred/secret material, use of Aboriginal languages by the National Museum, the disposal of skeletal remains, exhibition policies for indoor and outdoor display and other relevant issues. Advice provided by the Aboriginal Advisory Committee has been adopted by the Council of the National Museum and incorporated into the planning of the institution. The National Museum appointed a Curator of the Gallery of Aboriginal Australia in January 1985 together with support staff. Other positions in the National Museum have also been designated as suitable for staffing by Aboriginal people. When possible Aboriginals have filled these positions. The National Museum is partly funding a two-year museum studies course for Aboriginal people at the Canberra College of Advanced Education. This course, leading to an Associate Diploma in Applied Science, is the only one of its kind in Australia. The course offers students broad training in museum policy and practice with particular reference to Aboriginal heritage. The opening of the Gallery of Aboriginal Australia to the public will coincide with the opening of the National Museum. (Question No. 4174) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 3 June 1986: (1) Has he asked the Australian Embassy in Moscow to report on conditions in Camp 36-1. (2) Is he able to state what the purpose of this camp is and where it is located. (3) Will he advise the House whether allegations of human rights abuses in this camp have been substantiated. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Australian Embassy in Moscow monitors and reports regularly on human rights in the Soviet Union, especially on particular aspects which have aroused interest in Australia. (2) Camp Perm 36-1 is a so-called ``special-regime'' camp, this being the harshest form of corrective labour colony in Soviet penal practice. It is situated near the town of Perm about 1200 kilometres east of Moscow. (3) As access to Soviet labour camps by independent observers is not permitted, it is not possible to substantiate directly allegations of human rights abuses in such camps. According to information collected by Amnesty International, however, including testimony from former prisoners, inmates of camp Perm 36-1 are required to do physically arduous work on inadequate rations and in conditions of medical neglect. (Question No. 4178) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 3 June 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to Anmesty International's concern about the fate of 11 political prisioners who were reportedly removed from Abepura Prison in Irian Jaya at 3 a.m. on 27 January 1986. (2) Will he make inquiries concerning the fate of these political prisoners and advise of the outcome of his inquiries. Mr Hayden —The answers to the honourable member's questions are as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Our Embassy in Jakarta has made inquiries about these men, and has received unconfirmed information that they have been moved to a prison in Surabaya, East Java. The Embassy is continuing its inquiries. (Question No. 4284) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 5 June 1986: (1) Is he able to say whether Mr P. Agee (a) has received an invitation to visit New Zealand from the disarmament movement in that country, (b) has stated that he expects to be invited to Australia by similar organisations in this country, (c) is a former employee of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and (d) in his book ``The Company: CIA Diaries'' has revealed the names of several hundred CIA agents throughout the world, including that of Mr R. Welch. (2) Is he able to say whether Mr Welch was assassinated in Athens shortly after the publication of the book written by Mr Agee. (3) Is he able to say whether the United Kingdom, France and Holland have refused entry to Mr Agee and that the United States has revoked his passport. (4) Does the evidence relating to the activities of Mr Agee up to this date constitute a breach of the guidelines relating to the issue of an Australian visa. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) and (b) I am not responsible for these matters. (c) Yes. Mr Agee was employed by the Central Intelligence Agency from 1957 to 1968. (d) Mr Agee's book ``Inside The Company: CIA Diary'' published in 1975, contains a list of persons alleged to be CIA officers and agents, but the name R. Welch does not appear on it. Mr Welch's name does appear in the ``Who's Who'' section of Agee's book ``Dirty Work: The CIA in Western Europe'', published in 1978. (2) Mr Richard Welch was assassinated in Athens on 23 December 1975. (3) Mr Agee was expelled from Britain in 1976 and has been refused entry to France. At one time he lodged an application for residence in the Netherlands which was withdrawn before a decision was made. The United States Government revoked Mr Agee's passport in December 1979. (4) The question of the issue of an Australian visa to Mr Agee has not yet arisen since no application has been received. (Question No. 4292) Mr Langmore asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 5 June 1986: (1) What was Australia's position on the question of decolonisation of New Caledonia at the 1985 South Pacific Forum. (2) Is he able to say (a) how the proposals of the Chirac Government differ from those of the Pisani-Fabius Plan in relation to movement in the direction of decolonisation, (b) whether they will lead to greater or lesser participation by the Melanesians in political decision-making in the territory. (3) Is he able to say if these proposals will lead to a greater build-up of French military forces in the South Pacific; if so, of what magnitude. (4) Is he able to say what the view of the French Socialist Party is regarding these changes. (5) Is he able to say whether President Mitterand is able to have any influence over developments in New Caledonia. (6) Will he explain the Government's view on the changes in French Government policy in the South Pacific. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Australia's position at the 1985 South Pacific Forum on the question of decolonisation of New Caledonia was reflected in the Communique agreed to by Heads of Government (including Australia) who attended the Forum, the relevant section of which reads as follows: Decolonisation: New Caledonia `The Forum reviewed developments in New Caledonia since its last meeting. The Forum reaffirmed its suport for self-determination and the early transition to an independent New Caledonia in accordance with the innate, active rights and aspirations of the indigenous people and in a manner which guaranteed the rights and interests of all inhabitants of this multi-racial society. The Forum condemned the violence which had and continues to occur in New Caledonia and which has resulted in tragic loss of life thus seriously jeopardising the process of dialogue. Heads of Government called on all parties to refrain from further violence and to engage in constructive dialogue which, alone, would ensure a peaceful and lasting resolution of New Caledonia's present problems. Referring to the decision on New Caledonia adopted at its last meeting in Tuvalu, the Forum welcomed the fact that France had now publicly agreed to an early act of self-determination with the objective of bringing New Caledonia to independencee. The Forum noted with satisfaction that the date for the act of self-determination had been brought forward: the vote was now to take place by the end of 1987 at the latest. The Forum urged the French Government to undertake electoral reforms before the act of self-determination to ensure that the result accurately reflected the wishes of the Kanak people and others who had a long-term residence in and commitment to New Caledonia. The Forum noted with interest the statement made by the French Prime Minister in April 1985 in which he outlined proposals for the administration of New Caledonia in the period leading up to the act of self-determination. The Forum noted that, in accordance with the Prime Minister's announcement, legislation concerning the relationship between New Caledonia and France had recently been adopted by the Fench Parliament. Heads of Government expressed the view that the course of action on which the French Government had now embarked contained positive elements which were appropriate in assisting the territory in its evolution to independence. The Forum expressed the strong hope that this plan would be firmly and consistently pursued to its conclusion by 31 December 1987. The Forum called on all parties to work towards the proper conduct of the forthcoming regional elections in a fair and peaceful manner and to advance diligently the process of decolonisation within New Caledonia. In the light of strong reservations about increased militarisation of the region, the Forum called on France to clarify publicly the nature and extent of its announced intention to upgrade its military facilities in New Caledonia. The Forum also again stressed its view that France should transfer additional political and administrative powers to the territory to ensure that it was adequately prepared for independence, and take the practical steps necessary to guarantee the full and active participation of the Melanesian community in the territory's educational, vocational, administrative and economic structures. The Forum addressed the question of granting Forum observer status to the FLNKS and agreed to set up a working group to review the question of observer status in the Forum. The group should consider the existing guidelines governing the question of observer status, and consider whether any changes were desirable or necessary. The Forum noted that the work of this group would assist consideration of, but not be confined to, the proposal that the FLNKS be admitted to observer status at Forum meetings. The Forum discussed in some detail the question of possible involvement of the United Nations in the situation in New Caledonia. It was widely acknowledged that keeping the question before the international community was important, and Forum members felt that speeches by Forum members in the United Nations General Assembly's general debate might take up the objectives of the Forum in relation to New Caledonia. However, the Forum reaffirmed that it had a continuing primary role, as a regional body, to continue its consideration of developments in the territory and to respond as and where appropriate. While noting the arguments on the question of reinscription at this juncture, the Forum would seek information from the appropriate organs of the UN on the applicability of the UN Charter and the 1960 Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples. It agreed to give further consideration to this question at its 17th meeting. The Forum noted that the Ministerial Group established at Tuvalu to discuss Forum views on New Caledonia with the Independence Front and the French authorities had fulfilled its original mandate. It expressed appreciation for the reports circulated to all Forum members on the two meetings which members of the Ministerial Group had held at the end of 1984. The Forum agreed, however, that there was a need for all member countries to remain fully informed of developments in future and decided to establish a Standing Committee of officials to report to the Ministerial Group on a continuing basis over the crucial period before the next meeting of the Forum. The Officials Group should alert the Ministerial Group to any development including political developments in France itself which may call for a reaction or a response by the Ministerial Group or by Forum Governments as a whole. The Forum agreed that its views should be conveyed formally to the French Government. (2) (a) The Fabius Statute was introduced in August 1985 by the previous French Government of Prime Minister Fabius. The statute provided for a referendum to take place no later than 31 December 1987 for the people of New Caledonia to decide on accession to ``independence in association with France''. In the interim, four regions were created, a major plan of economic, social and cultural reform was to be put into effect, including the creation of a land reform office to return land held by settlers to traditional Kanak inhabitants, and steps were to be taken to strengthen the French military presence in New Caledonia. The new French Government of Prime Minister Chirac which came into office in March 1986 has set aside the proposal for independence in association with France. This had been the key point of the Fabius Plan. Transitional legislation promulgated on 19 July 1986 provides for an act of self-determination to take place within a year in which New Caledonians will be asked to choose between unqualified independence or continu- ation within the French Republic with a new statute based on autonomy and regionalisation. The conditions for the act of self-determination are to be set down in subsequent legislation and the main elements of the foreshadowed autonomy statute are to be communicated in advance. Under the transitional legislation the reform ordinances introduced by the previous Government are abandoned, the financial powers at present held by the four regional councils-three of which are controlled by the pro-independence Kanak political movement, FLNKS-are transferred to the French High Commissioner and the land reform office is abolished. (2) (b) The strengthening of the High Commissioner's powers, notably with respect to the regions over which he is to exercise a ``trusteeship'' authority, suggests that there will be less participation by the Melanesians in political decision-making in the territory in the interim period before the act of self-determination. The outcome of the act of self-determination will determine the level of decision making by Melanesians. While the conditions for this act of self-determination are yet to be established, the Chirac Government has made it clear that it considers New Caledonia will remain part of France. The French Government has yet to spell out details of its autonomy/regionalisation proposal under which New Caledonia would remain part of France. (3) No. (4) There has been no authoritative statement of the French Socialist Party's views regarding these changes. The Socialist Party was, however, responsible for having amendments passed to the Government's draft legislation prior to its adoption by the National Assembly on 9 July. The Socialist Party declined to challenge the legislation after its adoption by the National Assembly and to refer it to the Constitutional Council, which is the ultimate arbiter of legal differences about legislation. (5) Prior to the promulgation of the legislation, Presi- dent Mitterand had stated his ``deep concern'' and ``distress'' at measures which might ``create among the Melanesian population a sense of breach of undertakings given and hence of injustice''. (6) Australia favours peaceful progress towards multiracial independence in New Caledonia. We are concerned that the Chirac Government's policy involves a disturbing move away from some of the positive measures introduced under the Fabius Government. Of particular concern is the apparent intention of the Chirac Government to maintain French rule in New Caledonia and the removal of powers which had been granted to the regions under the Fabius Plan. The Australian Government will continue to follow developments closely in New Caledonia. (Question No. 1860) Mr Jacobi asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 17 September 1985: Do limitations of the Australian Taxation Office's (ATO) powers to investigate and obtain documentary evidence result in a lack of efficiency in the ATO's response to the challenges of organised and sophisticated tax fraud; if so, will he take steps to enact legislation strengthing the ATO's powers by bringing it into line with the provisions of section 545 of the Companies Code. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Commissioner of Taxation advises that the information gathering powers contained in taxation legislation are used extensively by taxation investigators. Instances do occur, of course, where an investigation is protracted because the Commissioner's powers are contested. Generally, however, these powers are effective in achieving their purpose. Fraudulent matters of the type that the honourable member mentions are often referred to the Australian Federal Police who may obtain a search warrant issued under the provisions of the Crimes Act. The existing power of access to books, etc. that is provided by taxation legislation is similar to that provided by section 545 of the Companies Act. In terms of increased efficiency in investigating tax fraud, little could be gained from bringing the taxation provisions into line with the company law provisions. (Question No. 2589) Mr Jacobi asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 November 1985: Further to my question No. 1860 relating to the limitations on the Australian Taxation Office's (ATO) powers to investigate and obtain documentary evidence, will he take steps to introduce legislation strengthening the ATO's powers by bringing it into line with the provisions of section 203 of the Customs Act. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: As I said in answer to question No. 1860, the Commissioner of Taxation has advised that generally the information gathering powers contained in taxation legislation are effective in achieving their purpose. I note that section 203 of the Customs Act mentioned in the honourable member's question permits certain authorised persons to seize certain goods in respect of which breaches of the Customs Act have occurred. I would not see it as necessary that a similar provision be included in taxation legislation. Where questions of search or seizure arise, the Commission will ordinarily have recourse to special provisions found in the Crimes Act. (Question No. 4098) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 27 May 1986: What progress has been made in 1986 in improving the (a) community and (b) shopping facilities of the Holsworthy Army establishment. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Army has recognised a need of community and shopping facilities at the Holsworthy Army establishment. My Department in conjunction with the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services is currently investigating ways in which suitable community and shopping facilities can be developed in the area. With this in mind, advertisements seeking expressions of interest from prospective developers for the proposed facilities have been prepared and are to be placed in the major daily newspapers during the next two months. The replies will be assessed shortly thereafter.