Thursday, 18 September 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Debate resumed from 19 August, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(10.01) —The explanatory memorandum to the Freedom of Information Laws Amendment Bill commences by saying that the Bill will `implement Government initiatives to reduce the net operational and administrative costs of the Freedom of Information Act whilst maintaining maximum public access to information held by this Government'. I repeat those words `whilst maintaining maximum public access to information held by this Government'. If anyone believes that, he will believe that pigs have wings. The hallmarks of this Government from the outset, which have become increasingly entrenched in its conduct, have been hypocrisy, incompetence and excessive secrecy. This legislation exhibits all those hallmarks. The Freedom of Information Act was an initiative of the Fraser Government in 1981. In opposition it was condemned by the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, and the present Attorney-General and Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen). Why was it condemned? It did not go far enough. Senator Evans had no doubts upon the subject. He said: Good freedom of information legislation is that which would set a minimum of procedural obstacles by way of delay or complexity of costs, and afford the maximum of practical assistance to those who are pressing requests for access to information. He went on: Such legislation would contain an absolute minimum of exceptions and exemptions. What he was saying was very clear. Delays, complexities and costs should be minimised. Obstacles should be minimised and practical assistance should be maximised. He said: The present Bill . . . is not a good, effective, freedom of information Bill. That was Senator Evans's lofty judgment. The present Deputy Prime Minister contributed his 5c worth. He said: If we look at the Bill from the point of view of assessing its merit, in any marking it would get about five out of 10-barely a pass. He also said: We on the Opposition side believe that freedom of information is a basic right and it lies at the very heart of the democratic system. I applaud his sentiment. I agree with it entirely, but what does it mean? It means, of course, that in the Government's view the Bill was a bad Bill. In government these open, honest devoted and competent servants of the people would fix it up; this galaxy of talents who have managed to run the Australian economy into the ground would maintain, improve and protect freedom of information and the rights of Australian citizens. What do we have here today? Do we have a Bill that minimises delays, complexities, costs and obstacles that so concern Senator Evans? Do we have a Bill that maximises practical assistance to those who seek information from Ministers and from government departments? We do not. We have a Bill that guts the Freedom of Information Act, enshrines delay, hands Ministers and bureaucrats a set of road blocks to obstruct and frustrate those who want to use the Act and prices freedom of information beyond the reach of the ordinary citizen. So much for the commitment of those opposite to open government. So much for their commitment to the values which they espoused so hypocritically in opposition and which they disregard so deliberately in government. We have here the politics of hypocrisy, which has won the day and which, as we well know, is entrenched in the hearts and minds of this Government. We have as well the obsessive secrecy that characterises this Government, particularly in recent times-a characteristic of a government in disarray, a Prime Minister without authority and a party with the stench of political defeat in its nostrils. Let me say in passing that that was epitomised by the way in which the Government approached the termination of the legislation set out to examine allegations concerning Mr Justice Murphy. We all recall that in the repeal Bill, as originally framed, any material that related to Mr Justice Murphy, regardless of how tangentially or peripherally, was to be entombed forever. That would have been the unmistakable and indisputable effect of what the Government tried to do. Caught out, damned by the Press and the Opposition, what was the Government's response? Senator Evans said that it was all a mistake. It was an `oversight' that had somehow escaped the notice of Cabinet, of the drafting instruction to Parliamentary Counsel, of Parliamentary Counsel himself, I presume, of Senator Evans and the Attorney-General, presumably of Labor's legislative committee and of Caucus. Nobody realised it until we pointed it out, but blind Freddie, if it was read to him, would have understood just what it meant. The same obsessive secrecy is to be found in this Bill and it is to be secured in two ways which also demonstrate the complete hypocrisy of the Government's so-called commitment to freedom of information. There will be new and increased charges and there will be an escape clause. First, as to the charges, there is to be an application fee of $30 for every freedom of information request. There will be an increase in the charge for agency search and retrieval time to $15 an hour, and there will be a new charge of $20 an hour for agency decision-making and consultation time. There will also be a $40 application fee for internal review. One might say that that is fair enough. After all, if these government servants have to search through the archives to find out what is there simply because some citizen is impudent enough to want to know something about how government works, they should be paid for their time. They are going to be paid for their time. It will mean this: An open-ended cost structure is to be set up under this Bill. Ministers and bureaucrats can take as long as they like and charge it off to applicants. They can wear them down through one of the oldest of devices-the burden of costs. If one can believe the Department of Finance estimate, the average cost would be $310 per application. Let me give the basis for that figure. I refer to a letter dated 9 September 1986 from the Assistant Secretary, Resources, Policies and Management Branch of the Department of Finance to the Secretary of the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. The letter was directed, among other things, to the $4m estimate of revenue to be gained from these new and increased charges. The estimate assumes 12,800 chargeable requests, an average of four hours per request for search and retrieval time and an average of 11 hours per request for decision-making and consultation time, including time taken in correspondence and/or discussions as necessary with other Commonwealth departments and agencies, State and local government departments and agencies with private sector bodies. Mr Hunt —How much for morning and afternoon tea time? Mr SPENDER —The estimate assumes 11 hours for lunch time, morning tea, afternoon tea, flexitime and paper shuffling. What does that add up to? It means that freedom of information will be beyond the price of the ordinary Australian. Who can afford those sorts of charges? Once the Government's servants and those in Ministers' offices know that there will be an hourly charge, it will be the easiest mechanism in the world: Keep moving the paper around slowly and even more slowly; and the costs will go up. The message will get through to the applicant and the outside world that if an ordinary citizen has an embarrassing request he should not apply because it will be very costly. Mark you, the story will be: `We would never do anything that was wrong. We would never do anything but seek to comply as quickly as we can, but these things take time. There has to be full examination of all the relevant facts, doesn't there?'. So much for the costs. I now turn to the escape clause, which might be called: `How Ministers can hide mistakes, conceal incompetence and bury from public scrutiny evidence of malice and falsehood'. It is called the `multi-document request'. It applies to Ministers and agencies. Let me give an example of how it applies to a Minister. If at any time-at any time, mark you-after a request is made the Minister himself is satisfied that the likely total work load, not the actual work load, would substantially divert resources or would result in substantial delays in dealing with other requests under the Freedom of Information Act, he can decide that the request should be refused. Who judges? The Minister judges. What is a multi-document request? It includes a request that relates to a number of specified documents. A `number of specified documents' means simply that-two or more. Incidentally, the existing test will be scrapped. Under the existing test there must be a substantial and unreasonable diversion of resources. Under the changed test, the diversion of resources has only to be substantial. The position gets better and better from the point of view of this Government's Ministers, and worse for the public. In deciding whether to refuse, because of the `likely total work load', to use the words in the Bill, a Minister and the agencies can take account of difficulty in identifying, locating or getting into order-the word used in the Bill is `collating', which means getting into order-documents, having regard to office filing systems and locations. The worse the filing system, the easier the excuse. Embarrassing documents could be scattered around the country and the response would be: `It is terribly difficult. I cannot find the documents easily, because I have scattered them around the countryside. It will need a substantial diversion of resources to get them all back again'. That places a premium on inefficiency, inertia, bad faith and complacency. The worse one's filing systems are and the more incompetent one is, the easier it is to raise an excuse. Another factor that can be taken into consideration in deciding whether to refuse because of likely work load is the likely need for and extent of consultations. We know what will happen. There will be long consultations. Another factor that Ministers and agencies can take into account is the time needed to decide whether there is exempt matter. Now, these things are going to take a long, long time and one can imagine what is going to happen. A departmental head is going to come to the Minister and say: `Minister, we have received a most embarrassing request for those documents that relate to that terrible case we have been trying to bury. Minister, it is going to take a long time to look at this matter'. The Minister will say `Do you think, Mr Departmental Head, it is going to amount to a substantial diversion of resources?', and the departmental head will say: `Yes, Minister, I think it is going to cause a substantial diversion of resources'. In that event the Minister will say: `We cannot have that, can we, Mr Departmental Head? After all, it is essential that my office operate efficiently, that the Department operate efficiently, and that we are not burdened by these unnecessary requests for freedom of information'. He will say: `Yes, Minister'. That is how freedom of information is being gutted under this Government, with its cant and humbug about its commitment to principle and open government. Hypocrisy is the yardstick of conduct, secrecy the order of the day, and a high value is being placed on incompetence. We know that this Government badly needs the shroud of secrecy. We will not be part of this conspiracy against the public. We do not oppose the increases in charges and the new charges because we are not opposing, as a matter of general principle, the Government's revenue raising measures. No matter how bad the Government's reasons, in Committee we will be proposing amendments to meet a couple of glaring matters in the Freedom of Information Laws Amendment Bill, things that should never be brought in under a government that had even the most vague commitment to freedom of information, but we will not oppose the Bill itself. I think freedom of information was referred to by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his Budget Speech. May I remind the Australian people that on 20 May the Treasurer said this: . . . what we have is an entirely healthy economy. And he said this: Let me make the point that the Australian economy has been entirely robust. He did not say that on 20 May 1984 or 20 May 1985, he said it on 20 May 1986. We know that what he said was false. There is no contest in this House that, at that time, the economy was deeply sick. The only question is: Was his remark a deliberate untruth or was it the result of deep, dangerous and contemptible incompetence? That is the only decision, that is the only judgment, that the Australian people need make. It was one or the other; because there was no way that an astute, well-informed and honest Treasurer could have come into this House on 20 May and said what he then said about the Australian economy. Upon return to government the coalition will maintain the Freedom of Information Act and, so far as it is possible, enhance disclosure under it. Exemptions will be reviewed and departments will be instructed that the primary obligation is to reveal, not to conceal, information and that compliance with the spirit of the Act will be closely monitored. Our view on freedom of information is unambiguous and unyielding. In the absence of good reason, government information is public information. The democratic processes depend on an informed, active and critical public. No-thing prevents government repression, nothing prevents government falsity, nothing prevents government incompetence more than a public informed enough to prevent it. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(10.20) —I appreciate that the role of the Opposition is to oppose and constructively criticise. I suggest that anyone who was listening to the previous speaker, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), must be somewhat amazed at the hypocritical stand that was taken by him. He talked about the Freedom of Information Act being basic to democracy. Yet it is quite clear that he would like to see the whole concept of the Freedom of Information Act discarded. We well know what his views were when he was a supporter of the previous Government. He criticised the attempt by this Government to reduce costs. Yet in the last couple of weeks we have heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) say that government costs must be reduced and that if his Party were in power that is what it would do. By way of the Freedom of Information Laws Amendment Bill, the Government is trying to bring down a common-sense approach, to put a limit on costs in this area; yet the honourable member criticises it. I note also that, whilst the honourable member attacked the whole concept, he did not bother to explain to those who would be interested in this Bill that there are no fees or charges to be paid by persons seeking access to their personal income maintenance documents. He did not bother to explain that there can be a remission of the application fee on hardship grounds or on the grounds that the documents sought relate to an applicant's personal affairs. Instead, he came out with a diatribe about how it will destroy the whole concept of freedom of information. I suggest that it was a diatribe. The Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), when he introduced this Bill, clearly stated that the purpose of the legislation was to reduce administrative costs and to try to increase the revenue to government in order to meet the running costs. We all accept that the Freedom of Information Act is very important. It is publicly accepted as part of our parliamentary and bureaucratic system. But I also believe that it is accepted that there must be a limit to the cost of any service that is imposed on the Australian taxpayer. Yet we find this approach being taken by the Opposition. It is not the first time that this Government has tried to address the problem of escalating costs in the provision of information. It is not the first time that the Government has tried to increase the contribution paid by users of the information service. Honourable members know that in November last year the amendments put forward by the Government were defeated in the Senate. I hope that a more enlightened attitude prevails when this Bill proceeds to the Senate this time. I suggest that it is important that the costs to the user of the Freedom of Information Act are not exorbitant. I accept that it should not be a deterrent. But at a time when the community is expected to carry a cutback of $3,000m in existing government programs-and that is what the Budget has done; it has cut $3 billion from existing government expenditure-it is only proper that the freedom of information service should bear its share of the cutbacks in government finance. Mr Tuckey —Rubbish. You have spent more money. Mr WRIGHT —I hear the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr Tuckey —The highest taxes in history. Mr WRIGHT —That is not true. But let us come back to what this is about. At the moment the return to government from the users of the freedom of information service is 50c for every $100 spent. Honourable members should think about that for a moment. For every $100 of cost in providing the freedom of information service to the people of Australia, the contribution by the user to government revenue is 50c. It is no wonder the government believes that, when one weighs up the costs incurred in pursuing a request for information, the community will accept the proposition that a $30 application fee is not too high. That fee will apply to all requests. Likewise, the increase in the charge on time spent in searching for and retrieving documents-an increase from $12 an hour to $15 an hour-is certainly not exorbitant. In view of the economic circumstances that our nation faces, I welcome the amendments contained in this Bill. But I regret that we have not addressed the existing Act in other ways by broadening the all encompassing role and powers. I see a need for even more open government in other administrations and legislatures in this nation. I would like to see the right of citizens to access to information broadened. I would like to see it broadened in such a way that it covers certain aspects of State government-those aspects where Federal moneys are involved. I listened with interest this morning to the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) when he talked about his efforts to try to get information from Queensland concerning Federal moneys that have been used and abused in that State. I suggest that if ever there was an example of the need for freedom of information relating to government decisions and expenditure at a State level, it is certainly Queensland. Last week the Leader of the Opposition in Queensland, Nev Warburton, raised the issue of a National Party official and a former Senate candidate, Michael Behan-- Mr Tuckey —Walshie should have got someone to forge it. Mr WRIGHT —If the honourable member agrees with what took place he should stand up and say so, otherwise he should sit back and listen. Michael Behan, a Senate candidate for the National Party and a senior National Party official, was given a loan of $145,000, not on the direction of the Agricultural Bank but on the direction of a Cabinet Minister despite the recommendation from that bank that the loan application be not approved. Mr McGauran —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to the Standing Orders which require a speaker to be relevant. If this speaker is permitted to draw in-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I take the point. Mr McGauran —Madam Speaker, I wish to speak to the point of order. If this speaker is able to refer to an example where freedom of information is requested, I shall turn my mind to the Murphy judicial commission and other matters affecting this Government. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. I have been listening to the honourable member for Capricornia. I presume he is setting up some sort of analogy. I will listen with interest. Mr WRIGHT —Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was suggesting, before the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) tried to cut me out, that there is a need to broaden the scope of freedom of information in our nation. Just as the people of Australia have the right to delve into decisions made by the Federal Government, I am suggesting-the only time one can raise such a matter, as you, Madam Speaker, would be aware, is in a debate that pertains to the Freedom of Information Act-that there is a need to broaden the present Act which we are now debating to encompass other Federal Government matters that relate to the States. I centre my remarks on the Federal money that was used by the State of Queensland. Some $85,000 of Commonwealth money was given to Queensland, under the national disaster relief scheme, at an interest rate of 4 per cent. However, secretly and by special ministerial direction, it was given to a National Party official who, the Agricultural Bank said, did not deserve to get it. In fact his whole farm was non-viable. It has taken more than a week for the facts to emerge because in that State, where there is no Freedom of Information Act, the Premier tried to cover up the issue. When the details finally came out he called it `a lousy $145,000'. Mrs Darling —It is okay for him to say that. Mr WRIGHT —It is okay for him to say that but I suggest to the National Party Government of Queensland and to the Premier that tens of thousands of primary producers would certainly not look upon that loan as a lousy $145,000. As Nev Warburton said, many farmers in Queensland, and for that matter throughout Australia, have virtually got down on their knees before the agricultural banking organisations and the rural reconstruction boards for much less than a lousy $145,000-as Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen calls it-and they have all been refused. The significance of my comments is that this is Federal money; this is money that this Government has appropriated to the State of Queensland but we have no way of knowing what happens to it. This is so with moneys from rural reconstruction and rural adjustment schemes where this Government and previous governments-the Fraser Government was involved-have given tens of millions of dollars to the States. Yet there is no way we can find out what really takes place with it. The people of Queensland, the people of Australia, have a right to know what takes place. We do not know on how many other occasions similarly politically motivated deeds have been done for National Party supporters and members when it comes to giving away State funds and moneys given by the Federal Government and have not been aired unless some public servants in Queensland-- Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. On the matter of relevance, I am sure that your tolerance has gone far enough. Quite obviously the Government has the right at any time to pass legislation to keep track of its own money. This has no relevance to freedom of information, which is about seeking information from the bureaucracy. The honourable member has had a good go. Madam SPEAKER —I suggest to the honourable member for Capricornia that he return to the Bill. Mr WRIGHT —I am speaking to the Bill. Madam Speaker, you would know that this morning the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, raised this very issue publicly and I suggest that it is very relevant. I would not argue in any way with what you have had to say. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Capricornia will stick with the Bill. Mr WRIGHT —Yes, I shall. Madam Speaker, you would be aware that the Bill refers to the right of people having access to information. I believe that the people of the Commonwealth of Australia like to know, for instance, what really happened to the $20m that was given by the Commonwealth to Queensland for roads in north Queensland. No one knows where it went because we cannot get at the information. It is believed that the $20m was spent on the rail electrification scheme in Brisbane, but there is no way of knowing. What we know from Budget papers and the Auditor-General's papers in Queensland is that something like $10m has been transferred from the rural adjustment and rural reconstruction schemes to Consolidated Revenue. Mr Tuckey —Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, Madam Speaker has just ruled that the honourable member for Capricornia is to stick to the Bill. The legislation before us is the Freedom of Information Laws Amendment Bill and is for the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. The honourable member keeps going back to situations relevant to the Queensland Government and to the road funding agreements and other Commonwealth legislation. If he wants to debate those matters he should do so when the debate on them is current. The debate he is taking part in relates to this Bill, and if he cannot talk to it he should sit down and let someone else who has prepared his speech properly do so. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —The point has been made. I ask the honourable member for Capricornia to stick within the terms of the Bill. Mr WRIGHT —I ask for your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Reith —You have just had a ruling. Mr WRIGHT —The honourable member should just listen; he should clean his little ears out. Mr Deputy Speaker, is it not the right of the people of the Australia to use the Freedom of Information Act to find out what happens with government moneys at a Commonwealth level? Is that not correct? I am suggesting that when those moneys are spent by the Commonwealth-regardless of where they are spent, be it on a Commonwealth roads scheme administered by the States, be it through a farm improvement program-- Mr Tuckey —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order at this stage. Mr WRIGHT —Be it in any area where there is a Commonwealth jurisdiction or-- Mr Tuckey —I am raising a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I am listening to the honourable member for Capricornia. Mr WRIGHT —Be it on a joint activity with Commonwealth and State Ministers, the people have a right to know what happens to that Commonwealth money. That is exactly what this issue is all about. I am putting to this House instance after instance where money has been given to the States, to Queensland, and we cannot find out-- Mr Tuckey —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The honourable member is not speaking to the Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The point of order has been made previously. I do not think the honourable member for O'Connor needs to raise a further point of order. The honourable member for Capricornia has sought the Chair's opinion on this matter. Madam Speaker, who was in the Chair when the matter was first raised, made it fairly clear to the honourable member for Capricornia that he should stay within the bounds of the legislation. Some of the matters the honourable member raised a moment ago certainly would be relevant to the Bill. I was not here for the earlier part of his speech, but rather than hold him up and have persistent points of order raised on his speech, if the honourable member can restrict himself to within the confines of the Bill, the House will be able to give him the time allotted to him. Mr WRIGHT —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I appreciate that ruling. It is quite clear that Opposition members do not want members of this Government to raise these points about the Queensland Government. That is what this is really about. I believe that those listening to this debate will agree with me that they have a right to know what is going on. It is quite clear that the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) would like to see a closure on any information that relates to governments in which the Opposition has an interest. Do Opposition members support the $85,000 given by this Commonwealth Government to Queensland for national disaster relief being lent to a National Party crony? If they do, let them stand up and say so. Or do they believe-they have supported it in this House; it was Mr Fraser who introduced the legislation-- Mr Tuckey —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: Is the honourable member going to speak to the Bill? He is using every device available to him not to do so, and I congratulate him on his skills. But it is your responsibility to see that he speaks to the legislation. It is Commonwealth legislation and it is quite clear. He should be very concerned about some of the matters that have been raised if he has the sorts of concerns he says he has. This is a restrictive Bill. It is going to cut back on the opportunity to get information. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr WRIGHT —The honourable member for O'Connor said that it is a restrictive Bill. In fact, in speaking to the Bill I am saying that there ought to be an expansion of the very role and powers of this Bill to encompass these areas. On one hand we have the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) talking about restrictions. I am suggesting that we turn that whole thing around. I am saying why we should do that, and I am keeping it very closely linked to Commonwealth involvement, because we know what takes place in the State of Queensland. We know that moneys have been misappropriated. We know that Commonwealth moneys have been misused, whether they be Commonwealth road funds or Commonwealth health funds. Mr Tuckey —I rise on a point of order. The honourable member has the opportunity to move an amendment to this legislation to achieve his aims. If he is prepared to do that, the Opposition will give him that opportunity. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member for O'Connor to resume his seat. There is no point of order in that suggestion whatsoever and if the honourable member for O'Connor continues on these frivolous points of order I will take action. I ask the honourable member for O'Connor to resume his seat. Mr Tuckey —I will move dissent from your ruling. It is a clear requirement of this Parliament-- Mr Wright —You will do anything to try to stop debate, won't you? Mr Tuckey —Mr Deputy Speaker, are you ruling that it is not appropriate to-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am ruling that the matter that you have just raised is not a point of order and I am asking you to resume your seat. Mr Tuckey —If that is your ruling, I move dissent from your ruling. If I am given a piece of paper, I will write that dissent out now. Mr Wright —You are a sick person. Mr Tuckey —I ask that that be withdrawn. Firstly, I am quite healthy and-- Mr Scott —That is a compliment to you. Mr Tuckey —Mr Deputy Speaker, I request that that disparaging comment be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member for Capricornia to withdraw that comment. Mr Tuckey —And I ask the honourable member for Hindmarsh also to withdraw his comment when the honourable member for Capricornia has withdrawn. Mr Wright —I find it very difficult to do so, but I bow to your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Tuckey —I request that the honourable member withdraw without any qualification. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —That is correct. I ask the honourable member for Capricornia to do that. Mr Wright —I do so. Mr Tuckey —Now I ask the honourable member for Hindmarsh to withdraw his comment. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I did not hear what the honourable member for Hindmarsh said. Mr Tuckey —I will tell you. He said that to be called sick was in fact a compliment to me. That is a disparaging remark and I ask that he withdraw it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the honourable member for Hindmarsh made such a statement, would he withdraw? Mr Scott —Mr Deputy Speaker, I have sat through all of this debate and these points of order have been frivolous. In that context, I think what I said was appropriate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If you made those remarks, I ask you to withdraw. Mr Scott —In deference to the Chair, I will. Mr Spender —That is not the point. The honourable member should withdraw absolutely. Go on. Get up on your feet and do it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member was on his feet and withdrew. Mr Spender —He said `in deference to you'. You know as well as anybody else does that there is only one way of doing it, as was pointed out by Madam Speaker in the last 48 hours, and that is to say `I withdraw', without any qualification or any little statement to the effect: `In deference to you, Mr Deputy Speaker.' Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I heard the honourable member for Hindmarsh say that he withdrew his comment. Mr Spender —With a preamble and qualification. The withdrawal should be absolute, and you know that as well as I do, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for North Sydney will resume his seat. I am satisfied that the honourable member for Hindmarsh withdrew. I have accepted his withdrawal. Mr Reith —I rise on a point of order. Quite frankly, I would have thought that there can be little doubt that to make a withdrawal on the basis only that it is in deference to the Chair is a qualification in clear terms. I seek your ruling on that matter and ask you to reconsider the matter, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Flinders would have heard as well as I did that the honourable member for Hindmarsh said that in deference to the Chair he withdrew the remarks. Mr Spender —That is not a proper withdrawal. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I believe it is a proper withdrawal. Mr Reith —Mr Deputy Speaker, I suggest to you that there is a level of inference in the statement that the withdrawal is in deference to the Chair. There are inferences in those words which suggest that the withdrawal would not otherwise have been made and that it contains an element of duress or otherwise in respect of the Standing Orders. It seems to me that the Standing Orders quite clearly state that an unqualified withdrawal is to be used, as expressed by Madam Speaker in the last 48 hours simply as: `I withdraw'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Flinders has made his point. To satisfy the honourable member for O'Connor entirely, I ask the honourable member for Hindmarsh again to indicate withdrawal without any qualifications. Mr Scott —I withdraw. Mr WRIGHT —They did very well, Mr Deputy Speaker; they used up my time. Mr REITH(Flinders)(10.41) —I do not want to let the occasion pass without drawing the Australian public's notice to the fact that the previous speaker, the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright), is a former Leader of the Opposition in Queensland who was dusted up by the Premier of Queensland. Since then he has come to Canberra, and he thinks he can fight a Queensland election from here. If the honourable gentleman wants to get himself involved so totally in Queensland matters, let him return to Queensland, stand for the State Parliament, and have another go at Joh from there. The Freedom of Information Laws Amendment Bill presents a particular problem for the Opposition. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), the shadow Treasurer, often refers to this place and politics as attempts to reconcile the irreconcilable. That is true of the Bill in some ways, for listeners to our debate would have heard clearly from the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), that the Opposition is largely in opposition to the proposals put before it by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in the Bill. We are opposed to many of the Bill's provisions for very good reasons to which I shall come. Our problem is that we are in Opposition and it is not our position to rewrite the Budget from Opposition. It is not our position to attempt to run the country from Opposition. When people say to me that they hope an early election is in the offing, I agree with them. The sooner we have an election and get rid of this Labor Government and start to turn the country around, the better we shall all be. So we find ourselves up against two principles. The first is that we are opposed in large measure to what is in the Bill. The second is that we are not prepared to stand in the way of a government undertaking its budgetary process. Later today we shall be discussing some amendments which go to some of the functions and clauses that are set out in the Bill, but we shall not be standing in the way of measures that are budgetary items. The process is rather frustrating because we are faced with a ploy. The Government has thrown this measure in with the Budget to place us in the difficult position of not being able effectively to prevent it. I say that it is a ploy because the Government adopted a similar approach last November when it tried to sneak through some regulations which it tabled in the Senate. Fortunately, the non-government parties in the Senate had the necessary numbers and we were able to put a stop to that ploy, which was designed to bring in some charges through the back door. When the Government was in opposition it was a strong supporter of many things. For example, it supported an increase in pensions to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings, a policy which it dumped as soon as it got into government. In March 1983, the Prime Minister promised to drop the price of petrol by 3c. As one of the Tasmanian members said yesterday, the price of petrol has done nothing but go up and up ever since. The Government supported also bans on uranium mining. However, when a South Australian election was on, it supported and gave approval to the establishment of Roxby Downs, one of the largest uranium mines in the world. If that is a little bit difficult to understand, I should explain that there is an inconsistency. While Roxby Downs was allowed to proceed, the Government stopped all the other uranium mines going ahead. Just to top it off, we have had the proposal that there should be uranium mining in Kakadu Park. Does the Government `Kakado' or `Kakadon't'? It seems not to know whether it is coming or going, whether it is Arthur or Martha. A year or so ago the Labor Party was against uranium exports to France, but that policy was dumped in the Budget for about $60m. Mr Scott —I feel compelled to raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. What this speaker says is not relevant. Since the ruling on the previous speaker was taken in such a narrow vein I ask that you rule that the current speaker speak to the Bill. The Bill has nothing to do with uranium at Kakadu. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Hindmarsh has made a point. The Chair has been fairly liberal with previous speakers, but I ask the honourable member for Flinders to stay within the confines of the Bill. Mr REITH —I appreciate the sensitivity of the honourable member for Hindmarsh on this matter as I think he was one of the three members who walked out of the chamber when the uranium decision was announced in the Budget. In deference to him I will try to keep clear of what has been a very sensitive subject. Mr Scott —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I ask the honourable member to withdraw the inference that I am sensitive. I am not at all sensitive about the question of uranium. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Hindmarsh will realise that there has been no personal reflection on him in the remark made. Again, I ask the honourable member for Flinders to stay within the confines of the Bill. Mr REITH —I will be very pleased to do that, Mr Deputy Speaker. I started with a preliminary point and one made very eloquently by the shadow Attorney-General when he raised the question of hypocrisy-hypocrisy with a capital H. He went to the Hansard and quoted Senator Evans in April 1981 when the present Government was in opposition. I did not discuss this matter with the shadow Attorney-General before today but it is interesting that the references he took out of the Senate debate suggested that the then Opposition did not think that the Bill went far enough and that it was barely a Bill, et cetera. When I went to that same speech I took out a statement of principle of support for freedom of information which was then laid down by Senator Evans. I will quote what he said in Hansard when he was in opposition in 1981. It is interesting how opinions change when one party moves from opposition to government. At page 1230 he said: The case for such legislation is overwhelming . . . He also said: It is necessary to remove the unnecessary secrecy which can be used to conceal weak or inappropriate or sometimes even improper grounds for decision-making. He later went on: . . . not least, freedom of information legislation is necessary to maintain and improve the quality of our political democracy. That is the point the Senate Committee made very succinctly in a very early paragraph of its report. Senator Evans quoted from paragraph 3.7 of that report which I do as well. It states: The essence of democratic government lies in the ability of people to make choices: about who shall govern; or about which policies they support or reject. Such choices cannot be properly made unless adequate information is available. It cannot be accepted that it is the Government itself which should determine what level of information is to be regarded as adequate. That is a statement with which I am happy to agree. I am glad I can agree with it because if one does not agree with Senator Evans one is very quickly a troglodyte or a neanderthal. They are terms I think most Australians do not understand, but I can tell them that those terms are not very nice and that they are certainly creeping into the vocabulary of the Government. That paragraph, the statement of that proposition, shows very nicely what hypocrisy we have in the Bill before us today. Let the Government have no doubt that the man in the street does not take kindly to this sort of freedom of information amendment law being introduced. I was out door-knocking a couple of weeks ago with Tom Warwick who is the very good candidate for the Liberal Party of Australia for the seat of Dunkley. Tom was pretty keen, as soon as he was pre-selected, to get out door-knocking. We were talking to people in Frankston- - Mr Holding —This has got a lot to do with freedom of information. Mr REITH —It is all tied up. One bloke said to me `I am a Labor voter, mate. I am against uranium mining'. I said `We have a difficulty, because I am a Liberal and I am in favour of it. What is your attitude to the Labor Party?' He said `It is not about uranium. The one thing I cannot stand is hypocrisy'. Freedom of information legislation is an important means for individuals to find out how a government is spending its money and how it makes decisions which affect us all. As the Go-vernment's political troubles pile up, it is fairly typical that it should attempt to close off those avenues which have provided considerable embarrassment to it. The Bill was introduced as a Budget measure, but it is just a ploy to introduce restrictions under the all-embracing heading of cost restraint. As I said earlier, the Government tried the same trick last year and was defeated in the Senate in November 1985. The basic means adopted to stop access is to charge like a wounded bull for information. The Government's argument is that the costs have grown out of all proportion and that, therefore, people should pay for the information that they require. The expected costs of operation and administration are about $15m per annum. My experience of the Freedom of Information Act is that much of the cost has been brought about by Ministers and agencies who are reluctant to provide information. I have had some experience of it, and I wish to bring to the attention of the House some examples-some case studies-of where costs have blown out of all proportion, not because people have properly sought information, but simply because every sort of obstacle has been placed in their way. The Commission for the Future is one of the Government's pet projects. It is a complete waste of money which, I might add, has been allocated 50 per cent extra funding this year. Some time ago I asked the Commission for the Future for some documents on its operation. On my first request, I got the information fairly quickly. I suspect that I got it fairly quickly because other members had asked for it. The Commission had been through the process before, it had it all there and I got it without trouble. I received a list of consultants, so I asked for copies of the documentation relating to the appointment of consultants. The 45 days came and went. I then lodged an appeal on the grounds that it was a deemed refusal, and that caused additional costs. There is no basis upon which that information was delayed for 45 days and no basis upon which a situation was allowed to develop whereby I could subsequently lodge an appeal. The documents then turned up and the matter has therefore been effectively discontinued, but that is an example. I am glad that the Attorney-General is in the House, because in mid-January I lodged an application with the Constitutional Commission when I was filling in for the shadow Attorney-General. I telephoned the officers concerned and asked about the costs, and I was told that I could not have any figures. I spoke to one bloke who had the figures on his desk, but he was naturally hesitant to give them to me. That aroused my suspicions, so I lodged a freedom of information application. I would have thought that it was pretty reasonable for a Federal member of parliament to seek details and information on the establishment costs of a body such as the Constitutional Commission, which is supposed to give us a new Constitution by 1988, when we celebrate the Bicentenary. I lodged an application in January. When I lodged it, I said that the Government had not provided me with the information that I had requested and I hoped that that did not signify that there had been some appointments or jobs for the boys in the Constitutional Commission. After 87 days, I lodged an application for refusal. We had a preliminary hearing with a barrister who was employed by the Commonwealth and who had a solicitor and a few departmental blokes present. They kept drip-feeding me with documents. On six separate occasions, the documents were fed out to me-I suppose to lure me on. We ended up having a full hearing with a very good, senior barrister from Melbourne. Two departmental blokes from Canberra had to go to Melbourne for a briefing, to give instructions to the barrister, and then they had to fly the barrister to Canberra for the hearing, and I suppose that was paid for. The hearing went on for a day, and I suppose that his overnight accommodation, et cetera was paid for. Of course, there was some embarrassment, because we found that Mr Whitlam was getting so much per sitting day and that his former Press secretary was involved. There were all sorts of moneys involved, and questions were raised. That is an example of how the action or inaction of government affects the costs of a freedom of information application. This was a very simple one. The Constitutional Commission had been announced and formed in December, and in January I wrote to ask how much it was costing. The costs involved in this freedom of information application must have been astronomical. There were about seven blokes at the hearing, against me doing it on my own. I do not know why the Commission had to have so many people there or why it had to bring a bloke from Melbourne. The Murphy matter is another example. When it appeared that the High Court or the judges unofficially were going to look at the matter, I asked under the Freedom of Information Act for documents that the Attorney-General may have forwarded to the High Court justices to help them with their consideration of the matter. After some considerable time, a decision was made and they asked me for $12.50. I can understand that there was some cost involved, but my reaction to that was that if the Attorney-General was sending information across to the High Court justices-and it was a matter of public interest-those documents should be released without charge. But they asked for $12.50, so as a matter of principle I said `It is a matter of public interest and I seek remission'. It took nearly three weeks for me to get a decision on whether they would waive the $12.50. It was absolutely crazy. I hate to think how long it took them to make up their minds on that one. Under the Act covering the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, the Commission has the right to appoint advisers and consultants. I would have thought that it was pretty reasonable for a Federal member of parliament to ask the Commission to tell us who it has appointed as advisers and consultants. I have lodged a freedom of information application, but I have not heard a word from the Commission. I can be sure of one thing-that I will not hear from it. To get the basic information to which every Federal member should be entitled and which should be public knowledge, because it is taxpayers' money, I will have to lodge an appeal. There will be great expense, and the Government will stand up here and say that freedom of information is costing too much. I could give many such examples. I could tell the House about the Australian Tourist Commission. I have had a run-in with it. I will have a run-in with the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis). I have asked him how he costed his work-for-the-dole scheme. He has said that it would cost $700m to introduce it. Surely it is not unreasonable for him to produce his calculations, but I know that there will be a fight on that one. On ministerial allowances, I have asked the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) for the documents showing the nominations by Ministers and office-holders of their principal places of residence. There is no basis upon which this information should be delayed. If there were a real commitment to freedom of information, much of this cost would be avoided. Not only politicians are interested in information. One of the amendments provides that someone can have information if it relates to incomes support. In many situations, private individuals should have reasonable access to information. One case is that of Mr Trewin of Wonthaggi who, when he was a prisoner of war and without his knowledge, was demoted from Acting Corporal to Private. It is a simple case, but it is quite unreasonable that the government should introduce legislation, for example: to introduce an hourly charge for decision-making time. . . That is an hourly charge for blokes to stand on their shovels. Another reason is: to strengthen provisions for refusal of requests on workload grounds. . . Many public servants have said to me: `We cannot help you because we are too busy'. What sort of a response is that? I am disappointed with the legislation. I hope that the Government will reconsider it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Before I call the honourable member for Gippsland, I inform the House that the honourable member for North Sydney has indicated to me that he seeks leave of the House to correct a statement that he made earlier. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney) —In my speech, based on a Department of Finance estimate, in information contained in a letter, I cited $380 as the average cost of an application. According to the Department's information, the figure should have been $310, made up of $60 for search and retrieval fees, four hours at $15 an hour, $220 for decision and consultation, 11 hours at $20 an hour, and a $30 application fee. I thank the House for its indulgence in allowing me to correct the matter. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(11.01) —The most consistent characteristic of Labor governments is that, sooner or later, they will repudiate promises and commitments they made while in opposition. The betrayal of so many disaffected Labor supporters who plague the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) by way of demonstrations wherever he goes is ample evidence of that. I do not know why the Prime Minister's shocking turnabouts of recent days should surprise any of his previously fervent supporters. It certainly comes as no surprise to any of us who witnessed his track record as leader of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the record of the previous Labor Government. Again, there has been a total turnaround, a betrayal of the most basic principles fundamental to the operations of a democracy, in the restrictions placed on the Freedom of Information Act. The shutters have come down on open government. Let me make it perfectly clear: The Freedom of Information Laws Amendment Bill is not an attempt to defray the costs of freedom of information applications; it is an attempt to restrict access. All of us have an understanding and an appreciation of the need to curtail government expenditure, but the problem inherent in the legislation goes beyond the increase in fees. It is the opportunities that are given to the Executive arm of government to deny information that gravely concerns me as well as my colleagues in the Opposition. At the conclusion of this debate I intend to send a copy of the Hansard record to the producers and script writers of the very popular and too-often revealing program Yes Minister. Nowadays, of course, the program is called Yes Prime Minister. It would make a fascinating episode to show how the bureaucracy, in collusion with Ministers, has completely manipulated access of the individual citizen to the workings of government. One does not need a fervent imagination to conjure up an image of Sir Humphrey, that arch bureaucrat, reassuring his Civil Service colleagues that they need not worry about pesty, insignificant citizens who may have an eye on an opening into the workings of the Civil Service-the mystery, deepness and vastness of the Public Service will never be explored under this Freedom of Information Act. At the same time, Sir Humphrey will advise his Minister that his Government need never lay itself open to any embarrassing disclosures or any kind of accountability to this country's citizens. It will be an interesting episode because, for the first time, it will not be Sir Humphrey putting it over his Minister; it will be a partnership between Sir Humphrey and Jim Hacker to remove any type of inquiry into their respective responsibilities. I immediately see a number of similarities between the Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), who has charge of the Bill, and Jim Hacker. The Attorney-General is a bus accident away from the prime ministership. Jim Hacker, who is of a similar disposition to the Attorney-General, found himself thrust into the prime ministership. Mr Hunt —He looks a bit like him, too. Mr McGAURAN —Our Deputy Prime Minister even looks a bit like Jim Hacker. There is no question that the Government impaled itself on its rhetoric when in Opposition. Senator Evans, the then Opposition shadow Attorney-General, when speaking on the Freedom of Information Bill 1981, spoke with grand and high sounding rhetoric about the need for ordinary people to scrutinise the actions of the Public Service and the Executive arm of government. Is it not sad that now he, together with the present Attorney-General, acts so stringently to close off any avenue, any real opportunity, for individuals to inquire into the actions of government. Let me quote one section only of the Hansard record of 8 April 1981. The cliches espoused by Senator Evans are so fine sounding that one could speak at length on them, but the following caught my eye especially: It is necessary to remove the unnecessary secrecy which can be used to conceal weak or inappropriate or sometimes even improper grounds for decision-making. It is our task, as a Senate, as a Parliament, as elected representatives of the people, to make it a good, effective, Freedom of Information Bill. The extent to which we succeed, as a co-operative legislative exercise, in improving this Bill will be an excellent measure of the seriousness with which we are entitled in the future to describe ourselves as legislators and as parliamentarians. By the standard set by Senator Gareth Evans, he and the Government have failed totally to be regarded as legislators and parliamentarians. Instead, they are revealed as a self-interested group seeking only to protect themselves from accountability. Let us examine how the legislation will close off the opportunities for individuals to scrutinise government actions. The first is the charge of $20 an hour for decision making and consultation time. That means that a public servant can charge $20 an hour for the time spent on deciding whether or not an application should be granted. It means that, where requested documents may cover sensitive areas-the Attorney-General said in his second reading speech that examples of that may be security, law enforcement, business, policy development, and so on-it is necessary for agencies to consult widely. We appreciate that. The point is, why is the discretion left entirely to a public servant to decide the time limit spent on such consultations? A public servant, bent on denying an application, need only resort to that measure to make it financially impossible for an individual to continue with an application. Another measure is that the legislation strengthens provisions for refusal of requests on work load grounds. This is the classic: Refusal of request on work load grounds. Good heavens! The Government itself has said that 2,000 surplus public servants need to be removed. Now it tells us that the Public Service may be unable, on work load grounds, to comply with applications. The Minister said in his second reading speech that he is unable to formulate a test for what constitutes an unreasonable work load. He is unable to lay down even guidelines, let alone a concrete test that a public servant must satisfy to justify refusal of an application. Again, the discretion lies with the Public Service or, perhaps more accurately, with the Public Service in conjunction with the Minister or at the direction of the Minister. Nonetheless, it is yet another aspect of a shield that the Public Service and a Minister can use to deny applications to the workings of government. A further aspect that concerns the Opposition is that the present 45-day limit on answering requests will remain. Under the existing legislation the time limit for responding to requests would reduce to 30 days as from 1 December 1986. This legislation will enshrine the present arrangements, making 45 days the minimum under which a response need be made. Again, that is a tightening of the ability of an individual to receive within a reasonable time an answer to his or her application. It is yet another tool to be employed by the Government in restricting access to government functions. Interestingly, the Attorney-General, again when in Opposition, without the responsibilities of office and with the opportunity to appease any specialist interest group which approached him-and many did at the time over the Freedom of Information Act-is on record as saying that he did think the time limit for responding to requests should be 10 days. There is a big difference between 10 days and 45 days. The Attorney-General is not even moved to honour some part of his previous argument by allowing the 30-day time limit for responding to applications to be implemented, as the existing legislation provides. There are numerous examples that have been touched on by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) and the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) on how the freedom of information legislation has allowed disadvantaged individuals to rectify their relationship with the Government and to improve their standing with the Government. Mr Hunt —Like the land owners up around Orange. Mr McGAURAN —The honourable member for Gwydir has said that a classic example of the need for the Freedom of Information Act is the `no base' debate which raged until very recently. It was only through a freedom of information application that the covering up, the inconsistencies, the bungling and the incompetence of the Department of Defence under the administration of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) were revealed. Moreover, the treachery of many of the actions of a number of parties in that divisive and often bitter debate was shown. There are many examples of this, and in drawing my speech to a conclusion I wish to touch on just one of fundamental importance. All of us are worried and, if I may use a colloquialism, worried sick, about the status and standing of the New South Wales judiciary. It may well fall within the State Government's jurisdiction- Mr Wright —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. During the earlier debate I tried to raise matters that related to Queensland and this Bill and we now have a speaker on the Opposition side raising questions about New South Wales. I suggest that, if I was out of order in raising those matter, this speaker must also be out of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The point of order is upheld. I ask the honourable member to come back to the confines of the Bill. Mr McGAURAN —I, with my colleagues, am rather surprised at that ruling, and so would anybody who was listening 45 minutes ago, given that at no stage did you rule that the honourable member for Capricornia was irrelevant in his address. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —That is incorrect. I did make a ruling. I asked him on a number of occasions to come back within the confines of the Bill. I am asking the honourable member to do the same. Mr McGAURAN —Recently this House considered legislation which would prevent any disclosures of any information, under threat of gaol or fines, from the judicial commission established by this chamber, in regard to the allegations made against High Court Justice Lionel Murphy. It worries me- Mr Wright —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I pursue my original point that the honourable member is continuing with his argument and is debating your ruling. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I do not believe that that is a point of order which should be upheld. Mr McGAURAN —The point I wish to make is that this Government has a penchant for secrecy. If the Attorney-General is concerned, as we all are, on a totally bipartisan basis that the standing of our judiciary, whether Federal or State, be unimpaired in any way, for heaven's sake, he must allow the charges that have been made against that individual to be put to rest once and for all. Instead, sadly, we are brought to the conclusion that the Government seeks to protect someone else, perhaps even someone from the right wing of the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party, who is implicated in the evidence already put before the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry. Mr Wright —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to the remarks the honourable member has just made and ask how they are relevant to the Bill before the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member, in continuing his address to the House, to stay within the confines of the legislation. Mr McVeigh —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I make a plea for you to listen to the excellent contribution being made by the honourable member for Gippsland. He is talking to the long title of the Bill. Because this Bill is listed under its correct title name, my colleague is using the long title of the Bill to pursue very pertinently, very precisely and very importantly those points which need exposition. I draw your attention to a ruling that must be made in line with my colleague interpreting, for the purposes of his speech, the long title of the Bill. If you check with the Clerk, Mr Deputy Speaker, I think you will find that the proposition I am making is immaculate in its logic. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Groom raises some very interesting points. It is a pity he was not in the House earlier to hear many of the points of order raised against speakers in this debate which required both Madam Speaker and myself to draw the attention of honourable members to the need to stay within the confines of the Bill. I ask the honourable member for Gippsland to do so. Mr McGAURAN —During my remarks I listed three measures within the present legislation which will close off very significantly the ability of individuals, whether in the Opposition or outside this place, to scrutinise government actions. The first is the introduction of a charge of $20 per hour for the bureaucracy to decide, to consult, to reach a conclusion on whether to respond to the application. Secondly, there will be a strengthening of the provisions for refusal of requests on work load grounds, even though no test of what amounts to unreasonable work load grounds is set down. Thirdly, there will be a maintenance of the present 45-day limit on answering a request. They are the three measures in this legislation which close off the ability of an individual rightly to pursue government actions affecting him or her. In the same vein, the legislation that recently passed through this place, closing off any opportunity for a judicial commission to make known its evidence to date, is a reflection of this Government's refusal to open itself up to scrutiny. We just have to wonder why the Attorney-General will not allow a free and open hearing, not just in relation to the Murphy affair but also in relation to the overall operations of government. For that reason I think this Government stands condemned. I think there is a growing and widespread cynicism about the motives of this Government in relation to the Murphy affair and its operations generally. Until the Attorney-General takes definite and positive steps to allow his Government to be scrutinised in the best traditions of a democracy, the grave fears most of us have about a number of aspects of the judiciary will remain. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(11.19) —in reply-I want to make the point that this is a Budget measure announced on the night of the Budget which endeavours to save the taxpayer substantial sums of money. If people want information it will not be denied, but some reasonable contribution has to be made when that information is going to be provided at a substantial cost to the taxpayer. That is the point that I think has been missed in this debate. People have been wandering into other areas, asking whether this Government has something to hide. Not at all. The issue is one of cost to the taxpayer. Apart from that, I am disappointed that the major contribution made by the Opposition was to belittle members of the Public Service. It talked about how incompetent and wasteful they were and how they were not able to cope with their job. The allegation was made that they spent most of their time at morning and afternoon tea or shuffling paper. Mr McGauran —Who said that? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I wish I could say that it was the honourable member for Gippsland. Mr McGauran —It wasn't. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It was said by previous speakers from the Opposition. Mr Spender —In quite different terms. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It was not in quite different terms. The honourable member should not try to get away from it. Mr Spender —You are making excuses. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am not making excuses; I am replying to what was said. Mention was made of incompetence, delay and excessive cost on the part of the Public Service. It was said that members of the Public Service spent their time at morning and afternoon tea and shuffling paper. I hope that honourable members opposite are listening to this, because I want to give them a few facts as to what the issue is about. The legislation is a budgetary measure. There is no question of there being a cover-up. It is a question of the cost of supplying information. Honourable members will notice that in the second reading speech clear evidence was given as to cost. Mr Spender —It is going down. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is going down. It has gone down to between $14m and $16m. That is how far it has gone down. Honourable members will notice that the contributions have gone up to $60,000. That is an enormous gap that must be picked up by the taxpayer. We are not trying to hide anything. What is causing this cost gap? Honourable members opposite say that it is caused by incompetence and delay on the part of the Public Service. I do not accept that, because the nature of the requests must be looked at. Firstly, if there is some suggestion-this suggestion was made-that there will be some extraordinary cost, of course, that can be investigated by the Ombudsman. If there is a suggestion that the costs are excessive, it can be the subject of a complaint to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Nobody mentioned that fact. Secondly, it should also be made clear that, if one is seeking personal information, no charge will be made. No mention was made of that fact. The existing provisions provide that account must be taken of a request where it relates to a person's personal affairs, whether the payments would cause hardship and whether disclosure of the documents is in the public interest. Mr Spender —But you are taking that out-the public interest one. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —We are not taking it out. The provision in relation to charges remains. But let us come to the point: Why are we expending so many millions of dollars? I will give honourable members some examples. An academic lawyer wanted to find out, as a matter of interest, all the information related to what was called the Westinghouse case. It is nice to want to acquire that information, but the cost of providing all the information on the Westinghouse case was $203,000. That information was provided to the gentleman because he was interested in writing a thesis on the issue. That is one case. In another case, a person wanted to know whether there were any papers related to people's criminal records-particularly in relation to himself, I guess. It cost $18,000 to compile all the information because there is what is called a scattergun request. One would not mind if the request were specific and accurate. One can talk about such a matter. But one must look at the facts: An amount of $16m, of taxpayers' money is being burnt up in this issue. This legislation is a budgetary measure-there is no other reason for it-to try to recoup a mere portion of that amount. We will be fortunate if we recoup $2m or $3m having regard to all of the exceptions relating to hardship and other matters. Mr Spender —But you are estimating $4m. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —We hope that that figure can be realised. The honourable member knows that such estimates depend on what sort of charges will be applied. I bring the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) to the point which he failed to address-that is, it is a budgetary measure. All that he has done is to belittle the Public Service and suggest that the Government is trying to cover up something. The issue is that the money that is being paid out is taxpayers' money. We are trying to recoup it, and that is why these charges are being applied. Members of the Opposition know that, as members of the Parliament, they can place questions on the Notice Paper. They know also that a lot of information is disclosed in the normal course of information that is supplied by departments. So, it is a bit unfair for people to say that they want all of this information. If it is personal information, certainly, charge need not be made. But, if they want the information because they have an idea that they might like to make a study of something-that is what happened in the Westinghouse case-why should the taxpayer have to pay $200,000 on the basis that that request ought to be complied with? Why should there not be some recoupment? A person may want to find out everything that is contained in the police files about himself or somebody else. Why should that cost be borne by the taxpayer? Mr Newman-a former Liberal member of the Parliament-sought to obtain all records of people's trips overseas. I had some information about this matter taken out. About 10,000 different items were involved-every laundry bill, every aspect of any charge that was made in the course of a trip. The cost of complying with one of Mr Newman's requests was $43,839 because it took 170 days to go through the thousands of documents-which, when itemised, amounted to 800 pages-on this very simple matter of cost. He wanted to know every item of cost. Mr Spender —You are throwing the entire thing out, though, aren't you? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Nobody wants to throw anything out. We are suggesting that Mr Newman should have made a contribution and should not have bludged on the taxpayer to the extent of $43,000 just because he wanted this information. Why did he want it? He could have got it by placing a question on the Notice Paper. It could have been provided in the normal way and the cost would have come out of ministerial expenses. Mr Newman wanted to find out this information and somebody would have had to obtain every document from all of the departments. How is that a matter of public interest? Any member can ask what the cost of the trips was. But it is outrageous for people to want every document examined and every docket produced. If that was not done, the suggestion would then be made that the Government was trying to cover up something. There is no suggestion that anything is being covered up. It is a question of the cost being borne by the taxpayer. The honourable member for North Sydney should not shake his head. It will fall off if he continues to shake it. I make this point: This is a budgetary matter. It is as simple as that. I do not want to go into every other very doubtful accusation regarding hypocrisy, stench, decay and all of the putrefying matters that we might expect to hear at times. The issue is that there has been a bitter attack on the Public Service. It has been suggested that public servants are incompetent and are always at morning and afternoon tea. I know that honourable members opposite are regretting it now. The issue is that we are trying to recoup a little more than $60,000 of the total cost of $16m. Nothing is being held back. Honourable members should ask themselves: If one request by Mr Newman cost $43,000, why should he not pay a substantial part of that cost? The issue he raised was of no interest to anybody. He wanted the luxury of making a request. Why should the academic lawyer who wanted to know what happened in the Westinghouse case ask that all documents be given to him, at a cost of $200,000? The documents, virtually, are a matter of public record. The important thing, firstly, is that we have information that is available to the people and we want to get it to them as quickly as possible. If it concerns a personal matter it can be done at virtually no cost. Secondly, the bleating we heard today, with the greatest respect, had very little to do with cost. It had everything to do with accusations about other matters which we will deal with in another debate. It had nothing to do with the matter that we are debating. The Government is not trying to cover up anything. It recognises that public servants are doing their job and doing it as best they can. Honourable members ought to look at the nature of the requests. It is important that, if people require a specific piece of information, it ought to be given to them quickly. But, when people ask for all documents relating to a period which spans 18 months or three or four years, that will take a considerable amount of time and will be very expensive. It is about time that we got rid of these wide ranging, scattergun requests. People who make such requests say: `I don't know what the files will contain; but, if I can get hold of the information, it will be helpful to give it to the media'. We suggest that the information will be made available; but, if it is of a wide ranging nature, some contribution towards the cost must be made. It is as simple as that. Nobody has mentioned that there is a gap of $16m which is being met by the taxpayers. That is what this Bill is about. It concerns the $16m that honourable members opposite are asking their constituents to pay, so that some members have the luxury of obtaining information that they could have obtained anyway. That is the point. That is the real issue. What value was it to Mr Newman, a former member of this place, to say: `I would like to know what the costs were'? We might ask to look at all the information relating to him. What would that prove? One can always find out the information. Mr Reith —I asked for it and you would not give it to me. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —We even gave the honourable member a remission on his $12; that shows how mean he is. The honourable member is getting plenty of money but he could not afford even $12. I want to make it very clear that what we are about, with the greatest of respect to the learned leader in this debate for the Opposition, is a Budget matter; nothing else. The honourable member for North Sydney did not address even one remark to the question of how we might recoup the $16m gap, except to suggest that the public servants were lazy, that they did not understand the position and that they were spending most of their time shuffling papers. That is not true. I know the honourable member wants to recant from saying that and I hope he does. I thank my colleagues for some of their contributions. If we go into what is happening to public moneys, particularly Commonwealth moneys, we ought to be able to get the information wherever it is-whether it be in the States or somewhere else. The honourable member for North Sydney talked about a cover-up. The greatest danger we face at the present time is not being able to find out what happens to substantial sums of Commonwealth moneys that are given to people to spend. We would like them to account for it and that is where the cover-up is. It is not in this legislation which deals with some recoupment and some reimbursement. I thank honourable members for their contributions and I hope that the Bill has a speedy passage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 9-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 10 (Processing of requests, &c.). Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(11.32) —I move: (1) Clause 10, omit the clause, substitute the following clause: Processing of requests, &c. `10. Section 19 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from paragraph (1) (a) `is made in writing and '.'. The amendment seeks to achieve the effect of making sure that the present limitation periods apply, that is, that as from 1 December this year compliance time should be reduced from 45 days to 30 days. A good deal has been said about costs by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). One of the arguments I understood he put in support of maintaining the period of 45 days is that there may be, or will be, a need for extra staff. Let us look at the history of costs under the Freedom of Information Act. In doing so I make it perfectly plain that if the Attorney-General had wished to deal with the kind of abuse to which he referred in relation to the academic who wished to write a thesis it could be dealt with very simply by an amendment to the Act which was designed to cure that kind of abuse. So we can put that matter to one side. The rest of what he had to say in his reply, if I can call it that, to the second reading debate did not in any way deal with the criticism we have made and the matter of compliance. There has been a lot of talk about the costs involved with the Freedom of Information Act. Many of the cost estimates that were made from the very beginning have been wrong. The Attorney-General estimated in his second reading speech that there will be a saving of about $4m. However, to my surprise, in his reply to the second reading debate he said that he is hoping to get $2m to $3m. Does the Government know what it is doing or does it not know what it is doing? Does it have estimates or does it not have estimates? If this is any indication of the accuracy of some of the Budget projections, it tells us that the Government does not have the least idea of what the Budget outcome will be. On the basis of past government predictions, all estimates about the Freedom of Information Act have to be understood as being overestimates. For example, in 1984-85 it was estimated that the Act cost $16.5m to administer and in 1985-86 $14m, a decrease of 15 per cent in money terms and around 23 per cent in real terms. Governments have consistently overestimated the cost of freedom of information. The original estimate in 1982 was in the order of $30m per annum. The actual cost for the year was less than half that figure. According to the Attorney-General, costs of processing requests have continued to decrease as agencies gain experience and improve procedures. The Attorney-General has also pointed out that apparently there is a levelling off. In his second reading speech, after referring to decreases in processing costs, he stated: In 1984-85 the operation and administration of the FOI Act cost the Commonwealth between $16m and $19m, depending on the precise allowance made for overheads, and the preliminary figures for 1985-86 indicate a cost between $14m and $16m. Of course this figure is down. He continued: Although there is some indication that the total number of requests is levelling off-preliminary estimates for 1985-86 the 36,000 to 37,000 requests as against 33,000 in 1984-85-it is clear that administration of the Act will continue to involve very substantial Commonwealth expenditure. The Attorney-General says this provision is a budgetary measure; it is a measure that does a number of things. One of the things it does is to impose charges. It also guts the Freedom of Information Act and that is a proposition that he simply did not address at any time in his reply. He had not a word to say about the changes which will be made to the way in which requests can be dealt with and diverted, the way in which they can be refused. The Opposition takes the view that there is no reason for not persisting with the original plan. We have had former years of experience under this Act which sought to bring down the processing time, the response time, to 30 days. The Attorney-General's assertion in his second reading speech as to the need for extra staff must be viewed with a very considerable degree of scepticism. Without saying that the Attorney is seeking to mislead the chamber-I do not say that-I do say that we do not accept what has been put by him for the reasons, in summary, that: First, the Attorney-General's statement that costs of processing requests have continued to decrease as agencies gain experience, secondly, the tendency of governments to over-estimate the costs of freedom of information compliance; thirdly, the Attorney-General's indication that the number of requests may be levelling out; and fourthly-this is something the Attorney-General did not refer to-there will be very considerable costs in the increase of freedom of information. As I have pointed out, the average cost, based upon Department of Finance estimates, will be $310 per application. The necessary result of that is that there will be fewer applications and that will mean less time will be spent processing applications-one would think overall-and, consequently, fewer staff would be needed for that purpose. Therefore, we propose that the timetable laid down in the present Act stand so that from 1 December the response time can be brought down to 30 days. Mr REITH(Flinders)(11.40) —I want to pick up some of the points in regard to the reduction in the number of days. The Attorney-General's point is that all the costs involved in the administration of the Freedom of Information Act are costs brought about by applicants. That just is not true. Earlier today, although my time was limited, I gave a number of instances where I had lodged applications and requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act and had been nothing else but mucked around by departments. The costs involved were costs created not by me but by the departments themselves. Let me give honourable members another example and some more details regarding the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. I do not know why we need that body in the first place, as there are various such commissions set up around the States. I might add that it is something we will be doing away with when we return to government because it is a tremendous waste of money. I applied to the Commission for details of the names of consultants and advisers appointed by the Commission under the relevant Act. Specific clauses in the Act talk about who can be appointed as consultants and advisers. The ordinary taxpayer is entitled to know who the Commission is appointing to provide it with advice and consultants. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable gentleman should realise that he cannot repeat the speech he made on this matter during the second reading stage. The amendment moved to clause 10 is to amend section 19 of the principal Act by omitting some words from the relevant paragraph. The honourable member might direct his remarks to that and to its implications rather than recasting the general question that was canvassed in the second reading debate. Mr REITH —Mr Chairman, I am attempting to give a case study example of the application of the Freedom of Information Act by an agency responding to an application in a manner which is not consistent with the Act and which gives grounds for my claim that many of the costs involved are created by departments. My example takes away the Minister's claim that this is a cost cutting exercise because, by definition and as a matter of logic, if the costs are created in the departments that is where the problem ought to be rectified, not by removing people's rights to freedom of information. The CHAIRMAN —Order! I really think that the honourable member is talking to clause 11 rather than to clause 10. Mr REITH —Which clause are we talking about? Mr Lionel Bowen —We are talking about your amendment. Mr REITH —Our amendment, which is in relation to the number of days? Mr Lionel Bowen —Yes. Mr REITH —That is exactly what I am talking about. If the Chairman will allow me two more sentences, I will bring the matter into relevance. When it comes to the time within which applications ought to be responded to by departments, it is a classic example of their being no excuse whatsoever for information not being provided within a reasonable time upon an application. One of the points that needs to be made about the existing Freedom of Information Act and its provisions is that documents ought to be provided within a reasonable period and not later than 45 days after the request has been made. There is even a clause in the current Act which provides that one can go off to the Deputy Ombudsman in charge of freedom of information matters, who will provide one with a certificate which says that prior to the 45 days the delay has been unreasonable, which certificate will give grounds for an appeal against deemed refusal. The point is that many of these costs are created. This case is a classic example of where it is not a matter of time. Ample time was available to officers to provide documentation. I was asked for $188 and when I rang up to ask how long it would take to get a remission, the response was: `We have to go to the Attorney-General's Department to find out the grounds and circumstances in which we will give a remission on an application for a reduction in fees'. That is not good enough. It is no good the Attorney-General saying `We have nothing to hide' when I can give details of a case study where I asked for information which ought to have been readily available because it is relevant to taxpayers' money being spent on advisers and consultants, where I could not get it and where it is obvious that I will have to lodge an appeal at some stage. The whole thing is in a mess. When the Attorney-General, after telling us a couple of weeks ago in his second reading speech that the saving was to be $4m, says today that now he does not really know, that it might be $2m, $3m, $1m or $10m, where do we stand? I ask the Attorney-General to cast his mind back to 1981-82, I think it was, when he was reported as saying that not 45 days, not 30 days but 10 days ought to be enough for most departments to respond to freedom of information applications. If that is true, it is worth putting to him. I am interested in hearing his response. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(11.46) —First, let me make the point that when we talk about savings we are talking about how we might be able to save in terms of administration costs. That saving would be in the vicinity of $2m to $3m. The revenue cost is $4m, although that is still an estimate. So what I was talking about previously was savings and trying to get down what one would call the overriding cost of administering this scheme which, I reiterate, is somewhere in the vicinity of $14m to $16m. The number of requests has been 37,000. The Opposition is now saying that it sees no reason why the provision of 45 days, the provision likely to obtain unless we make this alteration to the Act, should not be reduced to 30 days. The reason given is that if there is to be that restriction it may increase costs because it might mean having to put more resources into complying with requests within the time limit of 30 days as against the 45-day period which now obtain. That is the reason, the rationale and the explanation given in the second reading speech. That is the advice given to us. If one considers the nature of some of the requests given to us and how diverse and difficult they are, one sees that there would be an additional factor if more resources had to be diverted to comply with a 30-day time limit as against a 45-day time limit. It does not follow that everybody will take 45 days. I hope that simple requests can be dealt with readily, in a very short time. The point we come back to is how we can make the departments more efficient and more understanding of people's claims. We are always anxious to do that. Streamlining the Public Service, and how one does it, are part of a continual process. Some departments feel a bit fearful about having to make decisions and delay doing so. Since the Act was first brought in the question of whether more speedy decisions could have been made has been an educative process. That, in fact, has happened. The overriding administrative cost has been reduced from $19m to somewhere between $14m and $16m, despite the fact that the number of requests has risen to 37,000. Mr Reith —I must be one out of the box, because every time I make an application I have nothing but trouble. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Maybe it is the nature of the honourable member's personality or the nature of his requests. The honourable member made some outrageous charges about members of the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission having their fingers in the till when he knew that in many cases they were not getting paid at all. It is a pity that he did not answer some of the correspondence he received from those he maligned, but that is a matter for him. In dealing with this Budget matter-I get back to that point; it is a Budget matter-it is important that we try to contain costs within the Budget for the reasons mentioned, which relate to deficits and everything else. If the Public Service can improve and lift its game, cost saving will improve out of sight also. But at the same time we are not going to have taxpayers being asked to supplement the cost of extraordinary requests which really do not relate to the applicant's personal affairs or income-related matters. Income-related requests or requests in cases where there is hardship can be complied with very quickly at no cost. That is the real issue, not this wide scattergun approach of perhaps we might find out something which would be very handy to give to the local Press or somebody. Mr Reith —What is wrong with that? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —There is nothing wrong with it as long as it is paid for. That is the point. We do not mind at all, but the full cost should be paid for. Not one honourable member opposite has queried what a dreadful hole in the bucket there is when it is costing $16m and we are collecting $60,000. I can tell the honourable member that honourable members on his own side who passed this legislation when in government are having second thoughts as to the cost factor, but not one honourable member opposite has queried the cost factor. It was and is enormous. Nobody expected to be able to divert so many millions of dollars unrecouped. We do not mind putting the resources there if the cost of providing them is going to be reimbursed. That is the simple issue. I reject this amendment because it just increases the cost factor for the reasons that I have mentioned. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clause 11 (Requests may be refused in certain cases). Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(11.52) —In my speech in the second reading debate I spoke about the multi-document request and the change that is proposed to be made to the Freedom of Information Act 1982. This is a very major change which is being sought to be made to the Act and I will now be a little more technical about it. I ask the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) to disagree with me specifically if he believes that I am wrong in any way. Section 24 of the Freedom of Information Act is to be amended by clause 11 to permit an agency or Minister to refuse to grant access under what is called a multi-document request. If the agency or Minister is satisfied at any time after receipt of the request that the likely total work in dealing with the request would substantially divert resources from other operations, would interfere substantially with the performance of the Minister's other functions or would result in substantial delays in dealing with other requests, there is this power to refuse the request. I have pointed out that the person who makes the decision is the agency or the Minister. What is a multi-document request? Its definition is a good example of the kind of drafting that we do not need but which has just become entrenched practice in parliamentary drafting. I say that without intending any discourtesy to the actual drafter, because certain drafting practices have grown up. But one consequence of the drafting practice that presently exists in this Parliament is that laws are almost unintelligible to the ordinary citizens-and laws should be intelligible, particularly a law such as this, which is meant to provide freedom of information to the ordinary citizen. Returning to a multi-document request, it is defined to mean a request: (i) that is expressed to relate to all documents, or to all documents of a specified class, that contain information of a specified kind or relate to a specified subject matter; I might add that that is presently the only type of request to which a work load objection can be made. The definition continues: (ii) that relates to a number of specified documents; or (iii) that is one of a series of related requests; Under this amendment, it is further stated: 2 or more requests made to an agency or Minister . . . shall be taken to constitute a series of related requests if they are made by the same person or by persons whom the agency or Minister believes on reasonable grounds to have acted in concert in making the requests. I know what the Attorney-General is going to do when he gets up; he is going to refer to abuses. I agree that abuses should be met, but one meets abuses by specific amendments to the Act, designed to do just that. What has been done here is to greatly extend the power to reject applications under the Freedom of Information Act. I remind the Committee that the number of factors that can be taken into account in determining the likely work load-that is what the Minister or the Department looks at-involved in dealing with a request will be increased to include, in addition to the number and volume of documents and difficulties of retrieval, the usual location of documents, the likely need for and extent of consultation in dealing with the request, the time and extent of resources reasonably likely to be required to examine the documents concerned for exempt matter and to make decisions in relation to the deletion of such matter, and the likely work necessary to formulate and notify interim or final decisions-all this in the interests of freedom of information. These provisions would substantially increase the power to refuse a request. That is undeniable and I do not expect the Attorney-General to get up and say anything else. Not only will there be an increase in the number of excuses that can be raised but also the requirement that the diversion of resources or interference with functions must be unreasonable has been deleted, so that the interference or diversion need only be substantial. I now come to the point that I would like the Attorney-General to specifically address his mind to. Under section 24 of the present Act, when one looks to requests that may be refused and the power of the agency or Minister to refuse to grant access, one sees these words: . . . a request . . . which . . . would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the agency . . . or of the office of the Minister. `Substantially and unreasonably' are two tests that have to be satisfied. What has happened to the reasonable part of this test? What has happened to the lack of reason? Well, I have in my hand an explanatory memorandum, which states: Section 24 (1) will provide that a multi-document request may be refused where the agency or Minister is satisfied at any time after receipt that the likely total work load would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the agency from its other operations, would interfere substantially and unreasonably with the performance by the Minister of the Minister's functions. So that the Attorney-General will know what I am referring to, that is contained in the section of the explanatory memorandum relating to clause 15, as it originally came out. I would like the Attorney-General to tell me this: How was it that, when the explanatory memorandum originally came to this Parliament, it has those words in it; that is: `substantially and unreasonably divert the resources'? If the Attorney-General refers to the section of the explanatory memorandum relating to clause 15, which is now before this Committee, he will find that the words `and unreasonably' have disappeared into thin air. Why is that? I may not have noticed it but, as far as I am aware, there has been no attempt by the Attorney-General to tell us what happened. We have an explanatory memorandum mark I and an explanatory memorandum mark II. Those words which have gone out are not insignificant words; they are important words, because there were two tests that had to be met and now there is to be only one test. Was that what the Government intended? Did it change its mind at the last minute? Was the deletion of these words not a reflection of the drafting instructions? What happened? How is it that those words have now dropped out? True it is that the Bill makes perfectly plain that one only has to be satisfied that it is a substantial diversion of resources, which is a very much easier thing to say, but why is it that those words have gone? Is it sheer incompetence? Is it a change in drafting instructions? It must be one or the other, because those words appeared in the original explanatory memorandum-which I can give the Attorney-General a copy of if he does not have a copy-but they are not to be found in the explanatory memorandum that is now here. There is one other thing that needs to be said about this very increased power to refuse, and that is this: The Government has now laid down a framework of charges. This framework of charges is going to apply to search and retrieval and to consultation and decision making, so if one has a multi-document request that imposes a very considerable burden, but a burden that the Department or Minister is willing to accept, the charges apply. So it cannot be said, on the Government's own legislation, that the rejection of this provisions would add any cost burden. In the interests of freedom of information I would ask the Government to reconsider the exclusion of this wide power, which is a direct negation of the underlying principle of freedom of information. I ask the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) specifically to direct his mind to the explanatory memorandum and tell me why the change was made. Secondly, I ask him why, as a matter of routine for the purpose of keeping Parliament advised, a specific reference to the change that was made was not put somewhere in the second explanatory memorandum so that parliamentarians would have a better idea of what the Government is about. Mr REITH(Flinders)(12.01) —One of the funniest contemporary stories that go around about Yes Minister is the story of the former Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, and his departmental head, who were watching one of the Yes Minister shows. They both laughed at different times. The CHAIRMAN —I hope that the honourable gentleman is coming to the point and is not merely making an attack on a former Prime Minister. Mr REITH —I am coming to the point. A public servant friend of mine gave me an edition of Yes Minister. The last chapter relates to a set of circumstances where Sir Humphrey, when he was a junior secretary, made a mistake and wanted to cover his tracks. He finally persuaded his Minister to help him to do so by removing a file. The file finally read as follows: This file contains the complete set of available papers except for: (a) a small number of secret documents; (b) a few documents which are part of still active files; (c) some correspondence lost in the floods of 1967; (d) some records which went astray in the move to London- that could be Perth, Melbourne or Timbuktu, because that is what the amendments to section 24 will allow- (e) other records which went astray when the War Office was incorporated into the Ministry of Defence. That is another possibility. Mr John Brown —Like the ones that went astray in your time from the Solicitor-General's Office in Perth. Tell us about that. Mr REITH —I was elected to this place only in December 1984; so the honourable gentleman cannot place the sins of the past, if they were sins, on me. I return to the quotation, which continues: (f) the normal withdrawal of papers whose publication could give grounds for an action for libel or breach of confidence, or cause embarrassment to friendly governments. Perhaps a further paragraph could be added for Australian circumstances: `(g) other documents no longer available due to the Freedom of Information Act brought in by the Hawke socialist Labor Government. Mr Lionel Bowen —Shades of Hodgman. Mr REITH —I sit right behind him, which is sometimes an advantage and sometimes a disadvantage. There are some amazing things in the amendments to section 24. For example, proposed new sub-section (1) states: Where- (a) a multi-document request is made; and (b) the agency or Minister is satisfied at any time after the receipt of the request- What does that mean? Does it mean that a decision could be made about the extent of the work load involved before a request was made? That is an amazing proposition. I like the provision relating to multi-document requests and an attempt being made to get around the provision by a whole lot of people making single requests. This wonderful new clause will be a delight for those who believe in conspiracy theories. We have the following provision: 2 or more requests made to an agency or Minister . . . shall be taken to constitute a series of related requests if they are made by the same person or by persons whom the agency or Minister believes on reasonable grounds to have acted in concert in making the requests. So if my brother and I and a cousin made an application on a similar matter, each one for a single document, the action could be defined as acting in concert, acting in the furtherance of some devious conspiracy, which would enable the Minister to refuse the application. Similarly, and more likely, if 10 Opposition members all decided to lodge requests, we can be sure that the conspiracy theory would operate and we would not be supplied with documents under this provision. The Bill would do justice to Sir Humphrey Appleby of Yes Minister fame. When I am asked whether Parliament and the Federal Government are like Yes Minister, I usually say that they are not because Yes Minister is not always a wonderful reflection on members of parliament. In this case, however, I think that the Attorney-General should get the prize for the closest thing to Yes Minister we have had for some time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(12.06) —I thank the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) for praising me. I think he was directing his remarks to my appearance, if nothing else. The honourable gentleman has not had the benefit of being in government and I have no doubt that he has already dissociated himself from the mistakes of his own Party when it was in government. We live or die in this Parliament on how good we are on our feet; we would not want to rely on what might be called the infrastructure. We have to work things out from the point of view of how we shall behave. That is the whole process of government. However, the honourable gentleman will continue to raise these matters, as he is entitled so to do. The real issue, which was put to me with some clarity by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), is the deletion of the question of unreasonableness from section 24. The honourable member for North Sydney asked me why `and unreasonably' is not in the explanatory memorandum of which I have a copy when it is in the one he has. I can only say that he has something that is not related to the Bill. I have no doubt that what the honourable gentleman has said is right, but it is not in the explanatory memorandum that was issued by me, and it is certainly not what is in the Bill. The Bill takes out the issue of unreasonableness. Mr Spender —It is the first explanatory memorandum that I received. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I do not know where the honourable gentleman got it from. Mr Spender —I can tell the Attorney-General that it came from the Government Printer. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Perhaps the Government Printer was looking at the original Act, which has in it `substantially and unreasonably'. Mr Spender —Come on. That is no answer. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is an answer from my point of view. I am responsible only for what is issued here. Mr Spender —It says `circulated by'-- Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I have no doubt that the document comes from the Government Printer, but, from my point of view, in the Bill that has been introduced into the House the word `unreasonably' has been deleted. That is very clear. Clause 11 deletes the original words in section 24 (1). The explanatory memorandum which is in the possession of the honourable gentleman is incorrect because it relates to the words that are currently in the section. Mr Spender —It was issued with the authority of the Attorney-General. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Not at all. The explanatory memorandum that was issued with my authority is the one that is in my hand. Is the honourable gentleman suggesting that we issued two different documents? Mr Spender —Yes, I am. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I do not know how it happened. If it is in the explanatory memorandum in the honourable gentleman's possession it has no relationship to the Bill, which is amending section 24 by deleting the words `and unreasonably'. It would be a false explanatory memorandum if it suggested otherwise. The Bill is directed to this very issue, which is the subject of the honourable gentleman's complaint. Mr Spender —Yes. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I accept that from the point of view of the honourable gentleman's argument but not from the point of view of his amendment. We are talking about the diversion of resources which would interfere substantially with the performance of the agency. We have deleted `and unreasonably' because we regard those words as amounting to some sort of objective test. Mr Spender —Surely `substantially' is also subjective. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, it is a matter of a Minister coming to the view that it is a substantial diversion of resources. Having brought in that issue, we see no point in arguing whether the diversion of resources is reasonable or not. The issue is whether it is substantial and that is the issue that comes into the question of whether the agency is able to provide the resources. I have already given the example of 170 working days being expended to deal with one request. Surely the honourable gentleman would regard that as being a substantial diversion of resources. The implication is that that is not reasonable on the basis of what remains available for dealing with other requests, which is another aspect of the issue. Requests are not dealt with one at a time. Indeed, many requests are dealt with at the same time. If there is an expectation that all requests will be dealt with expeditiously and if all the agency's resources are diverted to deal with what is described as a multi-document request-as I have said, one such request took 170 days to meet-what will happen to all the others in the queue that are awaiting to be dealt with by the agency? It is for that reason that this amendment has been introduced-to discard the question of unreasonableness as we do not think it is relevant. The issue is whether there is a substantial diversion of resources. The honourable gentleman goes on to criticise the draftsman, in a way, by asking what is meant by a `multi-document'. It means, of course, more than one. The issue though is the question of a substantial diversion. That is the test. It is not so much the multi-document aspect; the substantial diversion is the test. It is important to recognise that requests can be made which would require a substantial diversion. We have already explained that in the memorandum and in the second reading speech. Let me come to the point. Why in the name of fortune put so much emphasis on some pro forma, some explanatory memorandum, when it is not in the Bill? The point in the Bill that the Opposition is entitled to argue about is that we propose to delete the words `and unreasonably'. We hope to delete that because we do not regard that as being an appropriate test. The question is whether there had to be a diversion of resources for the reasons I have mentioned. So I do not think we ought to waste a lot of time arguing about how the honourable gentleman got something which is obviously incorrect. It was not issued with my authority. The document issued with my authority is the one that is here in the chamber-it was tabled at the time of the second reading speech. That is the appropriate document. I am not responsible for every draft that might float around the place on the basis that it is related to what the Government had in mind. The Government had in mind what is clearly in the Bill. That is what I am suggesting the honourable gentleman should address his mind to. For that reason, in the spirit of the argument, we do not accept that we could have this clause deleted because it would take us back to where we were before, having to comply with two tests, substantially and unreasonably. We are not going to face up to that issue. We are talking from the point of view of a Minister having the capacity or his Department having the capacity to advise the Minister, that there would be a substantial diversion of resources. That is the test. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(12.11) —The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) gave the game away some time ago when he interjected on the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) and said that maybe it was the nature of his request that caused him so much trouble. Sometimes these flippant asides reveal what is in the back of the minds of people far more clearly than what they say soberly and carefully. That is what we have been saying about this Government. The Attorney-General has effectively conceded, in that flippant way, that there are embarrassing requests-and we all know that there are embarrassing requests-that departments and Ministers do not want to meet. In answer to the questions I have raised about the deletion of the need to be satisfied that there is an unreasonable diversion of resources he says: `That is a subjective test'. What does he think the other test is? That is subjective too. Who makes it? The Minister makes it. How does he make it? He makes an assessment. What does he do when he makes a judgment on the other arm as it presently stands as to whether the diversion of resources will be unreasonable? He makes an assessment-a judgment. In both cases there is a subjective assessment. It is nonsense for him to say here today: `The reason we want to get rid of this is because it is subjective. It is just there to clean things up and get rid of it'. That is not the case. It cannot be the case. If the Attorney-General reflects for a minute he will realise that what he said is quite wrong and he will have to agree with me that both the tests as to whether it is substantial or unreasonable are subjective. What I find truly puzzling is what the Attorney-General says about the explanatory memorandum. He says: `We have to look at the Bill'. He is quite right as it is the Bill that we are passing. But explanatory memoranda are circulated in these chambers for the purpose of advising members and the public of what the Bill means. He said that what I read was not issued with his authority. It says on the front of the facsimile that I got from my office in Sydney: `1986, The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, House of Representatives, Freedom of Information Laws Amendment Bill 1986, Explanatory Memorandum'. Underneath that is printed: `(Circulated by Authority of the Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General, the Honourable Lionel Bowen, M.P.)'. What is this all about? Does he not know? I am willing to pass it over to the Attorney-General. It has a number on the bottom. So he will know the catalogue number, I will tell him. It is catalogue No. 86 4927 9 which is not the catalogue number on the explanatory memorandum that we have here in this chamber. I would have thought that it is fair to ask: How in any competently run department or office could an explanatory memorandum get out which on a major amendment is quite misleading? How can the Attorney- General now say to me-and I am sure that he will wish to correct himself-that it was not issued with his authority? I close by passing over to him the facsimile which has been sent to me from my office in North Sydney. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(12.16) —I thank the honourable gentleman for that copy. I acknowledge that there must have been two explanatory memoranda printed, but only one was presented here. Mr Spender —Where do you think we got that? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I make the point: Only one was presented here and it has a different catalogue number, as he notes. I have just been handed a note saying that there was an error made in printing that one. The error would not be because there had been some change, it would be because somebody had used perhaps some earlier explanatory memorandum relating to the existing clause. Mr Spender —Some earlier draft of the Bill. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No. The point is that the Bill and the memorandum are accurate. The honourable gentleman wants me to give an explanation of how somebody in the Government Printing Office produced an earlier memorandum- Mr Spender —You authorised it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I did not authorise it at all. Surely the honourable member will give me credit for the fact that the one I authorised was the one I presented here. The CHAIRMAN —Order! I ask the Attorney-General and the honourable member for North Sydney to cease interjecting on each other. Mr Spender —It has the Attorney's authority on the front of it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is printed as having my authority on the front of it. Let me make the point that if the Government Printer prints something that is incorrect am I not entitled to correct it-if that is the implication? The honourable member would have more justification for his complaint if I introduced an incorrect explanatory memorandum here, which I did not do. Can I be castigated for introducing a correct one when he has an incorrect one which I did not introduce? Mr Spender —Don't you know how it came into existence? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I do not know how it came into existence. Mr Spender —Can you find out? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I will find out. The explanation would be that obviously it is the wrong one. The honourable member is suggesting that the Government Printer never prints the wrong one. I cannot argue with that but I think he would be wrong. Mr Spender —Your Bill, your office, your Department. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is my Bill which is correctly drafted. It is my explanatory memorandum which is tabled here in conjunction with the Bill which correctly explains the clause. The honourable gentleman wants to know how he got an incorrect one prior to the introduction of the Bill. It was circulated to his office. Mr Spender —Really? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Apparently, and that is the problem. He said it came to his office in North Sydney. Mr Spender —I said that I got it from my office in North Sydney. The CHAIRMAN —Order! If the honourable member for North Sydney persists in interjecting, the Chair will deal with him. The honour- able member has had his chance to make a contribution and he shall not continue. Mr Spender —I would like the Attorney- General to-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! He shall not contest the suggestion from the Chair. The Attorney-General might also assist by not responding to the interjections. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I apologise. I just want to make the point that the issue is how the honourable gentleman and his office got an incorrect explanatory memorandum well before this matter was introduced. He might like to take this up with the Government Printer. Mr Spender —Mr Chairman, I want an opportunity to make a personal explanation because the Attorney-General has quite misunderstood or misheard what I said. I did not say that I got it before the Bill was introduced in my office in North Sydney. I said that the facsimile was received from my office in North Sydney where the original of that is to be found. I have passed the facsimile to the Attorney-General. The CHAIRMAN —The honourable member has made the explanation of where the Attorney-General had misrepresented him. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —We are spending a lot of time arguing about a draft that is not correct. We have a different catalogue number on the one the honourable gentleman has passed to me. It was obviously superseded. Surely he would say that it was superseded because the first one was incorrect. That is the point. I do not know why this dreadful scenario goes on when there is no doubt about what the Bill will do. The honourable gentleman is a lawyer. Surely to goodness he will not suggest that we have debates in this chamber on what is in the explanatory memorandum when in fact we are supposed to be debating the Bill. That is the issue, is it not? Why should not the explanatory memorandum relate to the Bill instead of to some Government Printer's error? Is the honourable member going to suggest that every time he debates this matter he will be looking at the explanatory memorandum which is incorrect, instead of addressing his mind to the Bill? Of course, we have removed the words `and unreasonably', because there are appeals on the question of what they would mean from the point of view of whether they are substantial. Unreasonability comes into another test. I am making the point that, having had the question of what resources we have and whether they can be diverted because of the substantial nature of the request, that is the sole test now. For that reason, it is clear that in the Bill-the honourable gentleman has gone off on this other line, and I do not want to say any more about that-we do not want to face further arguments about whether, while the work involved may be substantial, it is reasonable. That is another argument. Certainly, many of these matters are taken on appeal, and that is the issue that we are facing. I have made the point that some quick decisions have to be made but if one request takes 170 days to process, would that not be substantial? What does that do to all the other requests that are held up because we have to divert so many resources to this one? Clause agreed to. Clause 12 agreed to. Clauses 13 and 14-by leave-taken together. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(12.22) —by leave-I move: (3) Clause 13, page 5, lines 29-33, omit paragraph (b), substitute the following paragraph: ``(b) by inserting in paragraph (3) (b) `or a person on whose behalf the application was made' after `applicant' (second occurring).''. (4) Clause 14, page 6, after line 6, insert the following word and sub-paragraph: ``or (iii) the giving of access is in the general public interest or in the interest of a substantial section of the public.''. The purpose of the amendments moved to clauses 13 and 14 of the Government's Bill is to give a power to remit charges and application fees on the basis of general public interest or the interest of a substantial section of the public. If I heard the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) correctly, some time ago he referred to the public interest criterion in a context which suggested that he thought that power would remain to remit charges and application fees on the basis of the public interest criterion. I have said before that the purpose of this Bill is to gut the Freedom of Information Act. I have heard no real argument addressed to my detailed criticisms about the way in which the Act will operate. I have heard the Attorney-General say that it is a Budget Bill, as though that is an answer to all objections to the Bill. I ask the honourable gentleman to reconsider and to ask himself a very simple question: If the Government has any commitment to the maintenance of any kind of freedom of information legislation, should there not be a power to remit charges and application fees on the basis of the public interest? That is what the amendments seek to do and that is what I would ask the honourable gentleman to reconsider. It would be astonishing if, in a Bill or an Act such as this legislation, where there is a power to remit such charges, and where a high public interest is served by the making of the application and what is discovered, there were no power to say: `You, a citizen of this country, have gone to great trouble and great expense. As a result of what you have done, we have discovered things which we did not know'. For example, a Minister could, as a consequence of the application made by a citizen, learn something of vital national interest-something which has been kept from him. Is it not fair and right that, in those circumstances, he or the department should be able to say: `It is true that if we were to charge you on the basis of the existing charge structure, it would cost you $10,000, but it is also true that what you have done is of very great public interest. Therefore, we believe that it is fair, in the public interest, that charges and fees should be remitted.'? I ask the honourable gentleman to reconsider the matter. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(12.25) —The honourable member for North Sydney asks why we are deleting the question of whether giving access is in the public interest. The reason is that we are basically dealing with remission. This section is about whether the charges should be remitted, and that question is usually related to the person wanting that remission. It does not really involve a public interest. Whilst it is mandatory in the present section, it is thought that that is far too strict a test. At the same time, whilst we are deleting it as a mandatory test-very seldom would a test application for remission be deemed to be in the public interest; dealt with more on the basis of hardship and other matters-I make the point to the honourable gentleman that it will still be contained in section 30 (3), which states: Without limiting the matters which the agency or Minister may take into account . . . the agency or Minister shall take into account . . . In other words, while it will not be mandatory, it does not follow that there would not be some discretion at times to look at those matters. The mandatory aspect has been removed, but if there was a public interest factor, it could well be taken into account. Amendments negatived. Clauses agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-read a third time. Bill returned from the Senate with a further amendment. Ordered that the message be taken into consideration in Committee of the whole House forthwith. Senate's further amendment- 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 apply in relation to- (a) the performance of any act otherwise authorised by this Act; or (b) anything done in accordance with an authority given under sub-section 7 (4).''. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(12.30) —I move: That the House of Representatives does not insist on its amendment made in place of the amendment of the Senate to clause 8 of the Bill and agrees to the further amendment made by the Senate to that clause. Whilst we agree with that, it is not what the Government wanted to have in the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (Repeal) Bill. Nevertheless, we have faced the issue that the Commission of Inquiry has already advised that it is unable to take evidence and that there needs to be some winding up of the Commission. The intention behind the clause was to prevent the publication of documents prepared within the Commission, which could well be allegations, which obviously would be damaging to Mr Justice Murphy and his family, because the documents had never been the subject of any examination, nor could they be, for reasons that relate to Mr Justice Murphy's terminal illness. At the same time, the Government is critical of the drafting of the Senate's amendment, which suggests that the only people who are responsible are the members of the Commission or their staff. There could well be others. However, the Senate fails to agree with the Government on that issue, so we will not be successful because the Senate has the overriding capacity to reject the Bill. The Bill went back to the Senate and was rejected for the second time. I do not want to delay the Committee any further because the matter has been canvassed extensively. I think that it is without precedent in a party commission that, if there is publication of documents that should not be published, the only people who can be impugned or dealt with are the commissioners or members of their staff. That is a fatal flaw in the Bill. The Bill does not deal with the other people who might well circulate or publish such material. The Commission was set up in camera on the basis that allegations could be made which have no substantiation whatsoever. Such allegations will never be subjected to testing in this case. Earlier, it was asked whether there was any cover-up. There is no cover-up in this matter. It is a question of documents which have been prepared within the Commission. All documents that might have been given to the Commission can be returned under section 18 (2) of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry Act. Any information that might relate to criminal activity can be given to the appropriate law enforcement authority under section 34. The issue was that the Commission was in the process of preparing documents which might, perhaps, have been the subject of a hearing in camera and also the calling of witnesses, none of which was able to take place because of the unfortunate illness. The Commission made the point that it would be contrary to natural justice to continue when Mr Justice Murphy was unable to be present, and certainly unable to give instructions. That information is now a matter of record. The Commission has furnished a report to the Presiding Officers. I again make the point that the Commission is a parliamentary commission that reports to Parliament. We are dealing with the machinery aspects of being able to say that the Commission will be wound up. Everyone in the Senate accepts that position of the winding up in the terms of the Bill before the Committee, except in respect of clause 8, which has been the subject of contention as to penalties. It was suggested that the penalty of $100,000 was outrageous. It related to a corporation. We are well aware that media interests will be very anxious to publish allegations. I have no doubt that they will be published, probably after Mr Justice Murphy's death so there will be no question of defamation. The issue in this case is: What will it do to his family to have allegations, of which there has been no substantiation and, indeed, on which no evidence has been called, nor could it be called? I think that the Senate's view is very unfair but, as we must get the Bill finalised, we have no alternative but to agree to the further amendment. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(12.35) —It is a great irony that, immediately after debate on the Freedom of Information Laws Amendment Bill, a Bill that will greatly restrict the accessibility of information from Ministers and departments, we should have before us a Bill that is unprecedented in the nature of the restrictions it imposes on information being made available at any time and for any use. It was only very late in the day that the so-called oversight was discovered and the Bill was amended so that material relating to Mr Justice Murphy might be seen after 30 years, if there is agreement by the Presiding Officers to that effect. A few points must be made quite clear. Everyone in the Senate did not accept the Bill as it presently stands. Our view has been perfectly plain. We deeply sympathise with Mr Justice Murphy and his family. However, we have taken the view and have maintained the view that, as long as the judge is determined to sit, the Commission should continue in existence. We have made it perfectly plain that it should not have hearings if he is unable to attend and give instructions. There was never any dispute about that. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) referred to the considerations of natural justice. We entirely agree that considerations of natural justice need to be observed, but the Commission said that it might arise that, in effect, Mr Justice Murphy would be unable to appear before it-not, as I understand it, that that was precisely and indefinitely the position. We have no quarrel about the way in which the Commission should operate. If it is to operate, it should always operate in accordance with notions of natural justice. It would be quite wrong if it were to do anything else. Given the high calibre of the men who head the Commission, I have no doubt that it would have done an outstanding job had it been able to pursue its task to the end. I am very sorry that it will not be able to pursue its tasks to the end. That that is so is simply because of one's sympathy for Mr Justice Murphy and his family. The Attorney-General said that the effect of the clause that was drafted by the Government was the right way of protecting Mr Justice Murphy against allegations. The clause reads: 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. Among other things, the fatal defect in the way in which the clause was drafted was that material that may have been given by the Commission to the National Crime Authority could not be used by the Authority. That is an extraordinary example of legislative incompetence in drafting. We go further and say that the amendment we proposed is the right one. It was deliberately restricted. The way in which the Government's clause is phrased would have caught the commissioners, their staff and counsel assisting. We deliberately directed our amendment to a narrow compass. We do not for a moment believe that the commissioners would do other than act with the highest honour and integrity, because that is the kind of people they are. We have faith in the staff of the Commission. There is a good precedent, to which I referred on the previous occasion when we debated this issue, for that kind of a clause. That is the reason it was drafted in the way in which it was. The Attorney-General referred to allegations against Mr Justice Murphy. I have no desire to see unfounded allegations against Mr Justice Murphy surface in the media, either before or after his death. However, we need to understand that this attempt by the Government to entomb material is quite without precedent but the making of allegations about people regarding their conduct is certainly not without precedent. Every day of the week in the courts of this country allegations of a most serious nature are made. Those allegations frequently never come to trial. I speak of civil cases where allegations of the most serious fraud, of the most grievous misconduct, may be made in open court at an early stage of a case and because the case is settled those allegations always remain around. I say that simply to dispel this myth that we are somehow dealing with an extraordinary situation. It is extraordinary in one sense-that it is the only time we as a parliament have ever had to look at the question of investigating a judge pursuant to section 72 of the Constitution. But the general making of allegations in legal proceedings, allegations that may never be proved, allegations that may be totally groundless, allegations that may in fact unfairly damage people, is not novel. I do not say it is something to be promoted outside the courts, but I point out that it does exist. There is another question that needs to be addressed and that is the way in which the Government has handled this whole winding up. My time is limited but I would like to make this point: The Government has failed not only to inform us fully of what has taken place, it has failed also to ensure that the material that came to the Commission would be properly examined. I will now read to the House what I believe is the fullest statement of the way in which the winding up has taken place. This statement was made to me in answer to communications I have had with the Commission because I was not satisfied with what I had heard from the Government's side. I make no charge of a personal nature against the Attorney-General. I simply say that I was not satisfied with what I had heard. I will now read to honourable members what is the fullest account of the winding up of the Commission. The Commission refers to my communication to it, and in a letter dated 10 September goes on to say: With respect to the matters set out under the heading `As to section 34' the position is as follows. Material in the possession of the Commission was not `analysed' for the purpose of possible communication to other persons and agencies specified in section 34 of the Commission's statute. I interpolate by saying that section 34 is the provision which allows the Commission to communicate material relating to criminal activities or suspected criminal activities to law enforcement agencies and other bodies in the law enforcement field. The Commission then went on to say: The Commission is not called upon by its statute to do such analysis. However, the question generally was addressed by Counsel Assisting the Commission and the Instructing Solicitor though naturally not in the same depth as would have been the case had the Commission gone to finality. I stress those words. The letter goes on: On an overview of the material available, much of which came from the National Crime Authority, the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Australian Federal Police, analysis was not warranted, in the opinion of Senior Counsel. A good deal of the material is inchoate and, in that form, unsuitable for reference pursuant to section 34. Generally, to be suitable for that purpose such material would need to be enhanced by further investigation and/or cross-examination of witnesses. I repeat that: Generally to be suitable for that purpose such material would need to be enhanced by further investigation and/or cross-examination of witnesses. However, when it became apparent that the Commission was to be wound up by the Parliament, it consulted the National Crime Authority over materials in its possession that the Authority might require. I interpolate here that the National Crime Authority is an authority of limited powers which can examine only specified classes of criminal offences. The letter goes on: Those requested by the Authority were provided to it. The letter proceeds: I confirm what you have set out in your communication under the heading `Receipt and Disbursement of Information' except that the material proposed to be sent to the Parliament under the repeal Bill- that is, in its present form- will not include: files received from departments and authorities; material provided to the Commission in confidence on the basis that it would be returned; Senate Committee material; Counsel's personal working notes which, I understand, have been destroyed; and administrative files. However, relevant information from the material described immediately above is contained in the Commission's records, which, it is proposed, will be sent to the Parliament. I add that it is material which, once it gets to the Parliament, neither we nor law enforcement agencies will see, as we are dealing with material that falls within the class A description. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(12.45) —I think it is very clear that the Government has never given any instructions to the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry. I make the point that we have had no contact at all with the Commission. The Commission itself had to make this decision because of the evidence before it and it made the point that no evidence has been heard and therefore nothing decided. It said it would be contrary to the principles of natural justice for it to continue. Any documents given by anybody else would have been returned to them. Any evidence, in terms of witnesses, that is available is still around. The question is of course, that due to a most unfortunate set of circumstances-the dreadful illness of His Honour-the matter will be finalised. One can only hope that there will be a period of recuperation and better health, although the prognosis is very dismal indeed. I thank the honourable gentleman for his recent remarks but I think it is regrettable that so much emphasis has been placed on the assumption that there has been some attempt to cover something up here. I do not think that is the case. I appreciate that I have run out of time and I will leave the matter at that. Dr Klugman —I wish to participate in the debate on the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry legislation but I understand that grievances have to be noted at 12.45 p.m. so we may have to bring the matter on again later. I am perfectly happy to speak now as I will take only about a minute and a half. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-agreed to: That Grievances be postponed to no later than 12.55 p.m. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect)(12.48) —I would like to raise what I think ought to be considered one of the most important points facing parliamentarians and people who believe in the democratic institutions of this country generally. I support the original legislation, but can see why, for practical reasons-the most important one, of course, being the composition of the Senate-it will not help matters. We can all imagine a National Times edition published after the death of Mr Justice Murphy, when one could say anything about the deceased, without the protection afforded by libel laws applying. I want just for half a minute to address myself to the general proposition: that scandal sheets such as the National Times want a National Times commission not a national crimes commission. What they want to do is run all the rumours themselves, and that for various reasons. But there is one important reason, as far as some of the important members of the National Times are concerned. We have David Combe's word, given before the royal commission which investigated him, that Brian Toohey and Marian Wilkinson, who are very prominent on the National Times-at one stage Brian Toohey was its editor-would never do anything to harm the Soviet Union and that they are extremely friendly to it. The same does not apply to their attitude to the democracies in general. But this feeling is, of course, reciprocal. As far as the Soviet Union is concerned, it has repeatedly subsidised the National Times by buying two and four-page advertisements, meaningless advertisements, for $10,000 to $12,000 at a time. If we look at issues of the National Times as it was going down the gurgler last year, they were doing that repeatedly. I think that they were after New South Wales Labor people, who support and defend democracy in New South Wales. I think that it is reasonable to say that they were-- The CHAIRMAN —The honourable member is testing me on the matter of the relevance of his remarks. I hope that he will come back to the motion before the Committee. Dr KLUGMAN —I have nearly finished, Mr Chairman. I think, unfortunately for themselves, and especially unfortunately for Mr Justice Murphy, they nearly destroyed Mr Justice Murphy instead. We have all seen similar sorts of things happening in other areas, again led by the Fairfax people in New South Wales. We have seen the recent misuse of a grant from the Institute of Criminology to Professor Vinson to investigate armed robbery. This was used to pay for `research' for the Fairfax Press to try to frame a district court judge. Anybody, even mildly numerate, would realise that the published `research' proves nothing and only makes one wonder about the academic standards at one of our universities. One of his fellow academics at the University of New South Wales, Mr David Brown of the so-called Left, and Mr Ken Gee, QC, of the so-called Right-the latter in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald-and many others, have exposed some of these fallacies. To conclude: Let us be careful as parliamentarians, and others who have some influence, when we try to please journalists. Some of them, for various reasons, will try to destroy not only individuals but also institutions which are necessary for us to continue as a democracy and thus continue to have a free Press. It is very easy to get applause from journalists if we give them muck to write about other people. But let us remember that basically the most important thing that we have to try to protect is the form of democracy which I think we enjoy in this country, whatever quibbles we may have about minor points, and that we must enable that democracy to continue. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being just past 12.45 p.m., in accordance with sessional order 106a I shall report progress. I have no doubt that at a later hour the House will again resolve itself into Committee to consider the remainder of the Bill. Progress reported. Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth)(12.53) —I regret that an important debate has been interrupted at this stage, but I am also glad that grievances are to be noted. My grievance concerns the Constitutional Commission, the body established by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) late last year in the silly season, which began public hearings in Canberra yesterday as part of its agenda of rewriting Australia's Constitution. In particular my complaint is that we know already, as we did at the beginning, what recommendations, in broad terms, the Commission, is going to make. We know that it will recommend increased powers for the Commonwealth, reduced powers for the Senate and the States and certainly reduced powers for the Governor-General. We also know what the Commission is not going to recommend. As I have already stated, we know that it is not going to recommend reduced Commonwealth powers, but we also know that it will not recommend, and probably will not even consider, imposing a constitutional limit on Commonwealth spending, a constitutional limit on the size of the public sector or a constitutional requirement that all Commonwealth expenditure be financed from taxation and not borrowings. In other words, the balanced Budget principle, which is so widely debated in our constitutional model, that of the United States, will not even get a look-in here. How do we know all this? There are three obvious sources for this information. The first is the set of constitutional principles set out in the book which is the father of the Constitutional Commission, `Australia's Constitution. Time for Change?' by John McMillan, Haddon Storey and the former Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans-who thought it was a good idea at the time. This book is based on the assumption that the Australian people are dumb. They must be, according to these writers, because they have repeatedly shown that they do not want to change the Constitution and certainly do not want to make big government even bigger. Therefore, they say, special techniques must be used to get them used to the idea of `reform', which is how they label their fuddy-duddy ideas. For example, the writers make it plain on page 375 of the book that the best thing that could happen to Australia would be to remove all restrictions on Commonwealth power by abolishing the States, the Senate, the Monarchy and the Governor-General. The trouble is that the stupid Australians do not want to hand total power to Canberra governments and its bureaucrats so, they say, it has become necessary to create `a popular momentum for change' by establishing a forum for constitutional debate on a `cross-party, cross-State basis' under such apparently neutral slogans as `efficiency', `development' and `rationality'. This is the situation that we have with the Constitutional Commission. But the book also tells us, as I have indicated, the direction in which this popular momentum is to move. The second source of information about the recommendations that the Commission will make is the selection of its members. There are several eminent and impartial persons among the 39 members of the Commission and its committees. Sir Zelman Cowen is an obvious example and there are others. But the predominant voice is that of people, all well known and all very capable in their different ways, whose public track record tells us in advance what their views are-the varying mixtures of centralism, socialism, republicanism and so on. There is Gough Whitlam, Don Dunstan, Jack Ferguson, Rex Patterson, Donald Horne, Peter Garrett, David Solomon, Thomas Keneally, Sir John Moore and many others. The same prior knowledge applies to some of the distinguished lawyers, such as Sir Maurice Byers, on the Constitutional Commission. Does anyone really doubt where Sir Maurice already stands on constitutional issues? It is probably true that some members have agreed to serve on the Constitutional Commission in order to try to stop the recommendations being, as it were, less worse, but the trend is clear. It is also important to note who are not represented on the Constitutional Commission. The small population States are not well represented. The National Party is not represented at all, but of course the Nuclear Disarmament Party is. Certainly those economists and lawyers who want to deregulate the economy-and in particular the labour market-do not have any voice at all, even though they have the initiative in the public debates at the moment. There is no room at the Commission for the New Right. The Constitutional Commission is stacked the other way. The third source of information about the recommendations to be made is the timetable. The five advisory committees of the Constitutional Commission are to complete their recommendations in just over six months from now. It took the old Constitutional Convention 10 years to get almost nowhere but these fellows are going to crack it in a few months. Just look at what they are going to crack. Some of the committees have put out issues papers outlining the questions that they will explore and answer. The issues paper of the Advisory Committee on Executive Government includes the following questions, and these are only a sample: Should Australia be a monarchy or a republic? If a republic, what kind-parliamentary of executive? If a monarchy, should the Monarch's power be retained or altered? Should the Monarch still be required to be a member of the Church of England? I guess we know the answer to that one. Should the head of state-president or Monarch-be elected by Parliament as happens in Tobago, or by a college as happens in India, or directly by the voters as happens in Ireland, or in some other way? No end of questions are raised about the Governor-General: Should the office of Governor-General be retained or abolished? If retained, should the Governor-General be nominated by Cabinet, or elected by the Parliament or by the electorate? Should the Governor-General have a fixed term? How should he be removed? Should he retain any reserve powers? If so, what ones? Whom should the Governor-General be able to consult? Should there be a judicial review of the Governor-General's exercise of his reserve powers? Should the Governor-General remain Commander-in-Chief or should the Minister of Defence be Commander-in-Chief? There are plenty of other questions. Should the Westminster system be preserved or abolished? Should the Prime Minister be elected directly by the people? Should non-parliamentarians be allowed to be Ministers? Should the Senate be allowed to defer Supply and what should be the consequences of such deferral? And so on and on. That is only a sample from the issues papers of one of the five advisory committees. They all have to settle issues like these by April of next year, giving the Constitutional Commission itself a year or so then to reflect on them. It is obvious that with such a tight timetable they will either recommend nothing-which is unlikely, because it would make them a laughing stock-or they will adopt the ready-made, prepackaged, centralist and radical proposals advocated by the likes of Senator Evans and his ideological colleagues, dressed up of course in the jargon of rationality, efficiency and consensus. Then the Constitutional Commission itself has to make final recommendations to the Government. Again, it will either deliver a few minor recommendations, which will make it and the Government ridiculous, or come along with the radical, centralist proposals that the Government wants and the Attorney-General has said he wants, no doubt knowing that they would be defeated in any referenda. So is it all a $4.5m time-wasting wank? I do not think so, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Government also has a hidden agenda. Even if nothing directly flows from the exercise, the radicals, the reformers or whatever they call themselves will have achieved a good deal. They will have had a two-year road show in which to peddle the idea that Australia has a shonky Constitution that is unworthy of public confidence; that the States, the Senate and above all the Governor-General are obstacles to progress; that more centralisation and bigger government are essential; that the removal of the constitutional checks and balances on government is a measure of progress; and that laying even the basis or the beginnings of a populist republic will be a step forward. Setting up the Constitutional Commission has been a huge attempt to delegitimise the Constitution of Australia. That is the hidden agenda. Our Constitution has in fact served us well. It has not been able to stop that curse of Australia, big government, but it has placed some limits on Commonwealth power and has been the framework of democracy in this country. Of course it is not perfect and should be reviewed but preferably by people-not necessarily parliamentarians-who have been elected to do that, people who have been given a long term brief. For example, let us have, as Professor Lumb has suggested, an elected, statutory, constitutional convention which has a right to make recommendations every 20 years. But let us have no more commissions of men hand-picked by government for their known prejudices and given a mandate to report in a matter of months with centralist recommendations that have been more or less written in advance. Despite the fact that some good men are serving on it, the Constitutional Commission is one of those ridiculous bodies like the Human Rights Commission and the Commission for the Future which should be abolished, and the sooner the better. Mr MOUNTFORD(Banks)(1.01) —I rise to speak in the grievance debate to defend the millions of Australians who have already made sacrifices for the common good yet are still badgered and imposed upon by our Opposition, and by some academics and business leaders, to give even more. I am speaking of the 60 per cent of the Australian work force who form the nation's unions. When Labor came to government it had a mandate to attack both unemployment and inflation concurrently. The fight-inflation-first policy of our opponents had been a dismal failure and had resulted in only 2 per cent growth over seven years, high unemployment and no real impact being made on inflation. Our whole policy was dependent upon the co-operation of the union movement through the prices and incomes accord. By this agreement the Government committed itself to policies of higher growth and employment while the unions promised to show restraint in wage demands and industrial disputes. The accord itself was no philanthropic gesture by the unions but rather an acknowledgment by all parties of the desperate nature of the economic and industrial chaos which seven years of conservative rule had bequeathed us. The Government has more than discharged its part of the obligation. We exceeded by more than 100,000 our goal of half a million jobs within three years. Australia's growth over the same period was about 5 per cent per annum. After the experience of the wages explosion of the early 1980s many commentators doubted whether the unions would hold their side of the bargain, arguing that the increased profits which private enterprise had been getting since we came to office would be too tempting a prize. Yet the unions and the Australian Council of Trade Unions, despite pressures from within and without, have held to the accord. The results have been remarkable-a 5 per cent fall in real wages at a time when some of our major trading partners have been recording increases, a 7 per cent fall in real unit cost, which no other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development nation has even come close to and a reduction in the level of industrial disputation to less than half that of the Fraser years. The Opposition could only dream of achieving such results yet, despite the accord's success, a hard core of Liberal dries and right wing intellectuals and a handful of big business leaders have chosen to step up their attack on trade unions. Their most recent skirmish was the Peko-Wallsend lockout. The worrying aspect of the dispute was not so much the issue of restrictive work practices itself but the men who were behind the lockout, their methods and their objectives. Charles Copeman, Peko's chief executive, adopted a belligerent attitude from the start. He announced that the disputed practices would be dispensed with overnight. When the unions objected he locked them out. When the Western Australian Industrial Commission ordered that the practices continue through August he ignored it. For good measure he denounced central wage fixing, unionism, arbitration in general and democratically elected governments. If Mr Copeman were alone in all this criticism there would be little cause for alarm. The extremist views of one man, even of one very powerful man, might be ignored. But Charles Copeman is just one member of a very select, intelligent and influential group which goes by the name of the H. R. Nicholls Society. His actions are but the result of a new theory in employer-employee relations-a theory espoused by the wider group known collectively as the New Right. Their economic philosophy embodies a primitive faith in market forces. They see unions as a bar to the free operation of market forces and so want unions and the arbitration system to be eliminated. Their way of achieving this is by head-on confrontation, with no room for negotiated settlement. Though it is a policy which failed at Robe River, it is one which the New Right overall has not abandoned and we can expect more of the same belligerence. What the Australian community now has before it is a choice of industrial relations alternatives. On the one hand there is the accord, proven over more than three years to be adaptable to the economic realities which Australia faces, and successful in allowing non-inflationary growth and increased employment. Alternatively, there is the New Right theory which does away with unions, wage fixing and arbitration. The theory looks something like Margaret Thatcher's Britain in practice. All of the so-called cures have been tried-anti-union legislation, privatisation, laissez-faire economics and decentralised collective bargaining. The result is an economic and social nightmare where unemployment is rife and where, despite the Government's best efforts, real wages have increased by 10 per cent over the last three years. The gap between rich and poor has widened, paving the way for racial violence of tragic proportions. The Government in England has fast run out of government owned industries to sell off in a desperate effort to balance the budget. In short, Margaret Thatcher's experiment has been an ignominious flop. The only ones to profit by it have been big business and the haves in general. The category of have-nots has increased exponentially and, lo and behold, when we look at the members of the New Right, who do we find? We find big business leaders and academics sponsored by big business. The lessons of Thatcherism, or rather its advantages, are being taken to heart by the New Right. Would a decline in union power and arbitration be of any benefit? Not at all. We have in this country the experiment of the early 1980s to show us the real results. The social Darwinism which the New Right preaches, whereby the strongest survive, will apply to unions as well. Powerful, determined unions can apply all their efforts to going on an industrial rampage to secure their goals. In this case the free marketeers may not be very pleased with what the unions can get when they try out the old theory of what the market will bear. Smaller unions, or workers employed by larger firms, will be squeezed for all they are worth. The anomalies between different workers will be enormous. In fact, the members of the New Right should recognise the foolishness of some of their suggestions. Three-quarters of the restrictive work practices which Peko believes should be abolished were negotiated between the unions and the previous owners of the Robe River mine. Not every employer will act like a Charles Copeman, just as not every union will act like the Builders Labourers Federation. Some of the more responsible employer groups have already seen the error of the New Right's ways and have sought to distance themselves from it. Mr Lindsay Thompson of the South Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has denounced `breakaway groups' who `could do a lot of damage'. Mr Brian Oakes, the Chairman of the Confederation of Australian Industry, expressed support for the work of the Arbitration Commission, while only last Monday David Hoffman of the Queensland Federation of Industry stated that the New Right was a potential danger. Of course, they should have every reason to be sceptical about the economic management abilities of the New Right's theorists. After all it was the H. R. Nicholls Society's president, Mr John Stone who, when he was Secretary of the Treasury, recommended the policies that have put us in the predicament in which we now find ourselves. In 1981, Mr Stone recommended, and then defended, moves to increase the current account deficit, to augment resources and enable growth to take place. He was also instrumental in keeping the dollar artificially high, thus destroying our export competitiveness and strangling our import replacement industries. Well might some employers doubt the competence of the New Right. The same John Stone, it might be added, is also a director of Peko but, of course, there should be no suggestion of any complicity in the matter. Another factor which they have totally failed to account for is the extremely small gain that their industrial belligerence would obtain. We know from experience how damaging a protracted dispute in a key industry can be. It brings misery to the workers, it crushes the profitability of the firm involved and it lowers the industry's standing domestically and internationally. But suppose all that bitterness could be avoided and the New Right could achieve what it wanted without any tears. Even then an across the board 10 per cent cut in wages in the manufacturing sector would still reduce costs by only 3 per cent. The battle is simply not worth it when one considers that the biggest single boost to our export competitiveness has come about through the floating of the dollar. Since the end of 1984 our currency has fallen by 40 per cent on the trade weighted index. This is the major factor in our increased competitiveness and it is this factor which our industries must capitalise upon. In one sense, then, the battles which the New Right would subject us to are all over small change. The New Right's posturing is all the more petty in the light of the call by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) last night for a summit on restrictive work practices involving unions and business. It is clear proof that the system works well under Labor without lockout strikes or sackings. The unions, indeed, under the accord have come of age. Through the accord, Australia's working men and women have offered industrial restraint in return for a say in the way in which the economy is run. The New Right would destroy this harmony for its own petty gain. In such circumstances Australians have a right to ask the Opposition where it stands on the matter. Is the Opposition merely the mouthpiece of this new group? The honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) has denounced the New Right as ignorant of the social aspirations of people. We still have not heard the Opposition leader clearly state his position. The working men and women of Australia have accepted the need for restraint. They will not now be bullied by academics, ex-public servants and second rate businessmen into giving up the institutions which have given them their high standard of living. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HODGES(Petrie)(1.11) —The Government's decision to remove 45 items from the pharmaceutical benefits scheme is a calculated and callous attack on Australia's three million pensioners and low income earners. It is an attack that will not be felt until it takes effect in six weeks time, but nevertheless is a kick in the head that will not be forgotten by the pensioners. The deletions mean that pensioners will have to pay for commonly used paid killers such as aspirin and Paracetamol that are used extensively by arthritis sufferers and for pain relief. Additionally, there has been a total deletion of antihistamines, which are widely prescribed to relieve cold and influenza symptoms and for allergies. The removal of commonly used cough suppressants and expectorants as well as some vitamin preparations and other items will cause great concern and stress to pensioners. The Government will save about $40m yearly, most of which, if doctors wish to keep up treatments, will come out of the pockets of pensioner patients. More than seven million prescriptions are involved annually. Examples are as follows: Almost one and a half million for Paracetamol at a cost of $6m; 949,000 for Aspalgan at a cost of $4m; 550,000 for Solprin at a cost of $2.3m; 356,000 for Zadine, costing 41.7m; 232,900 for Polaramine costing $1m; 521,000 for bottles of Senega and ammonia mixture worth $2.1m; and 452,000 for bottles of Pholcodine Linctus, costing $1.8m, to name just a few. In a letter to the Canberra Times of 1 August 1986 the Minister for Health, (Dr Blewett) stated that most of the drugs delisted were available over the counter, through supermarkets or pharmacies. He continued: This means that pensioners can buy these various drugs without first having to visit a doctor. Indeed, I point out to the Minister that they can do that now. In effect, what he was saying was: `We do not want pensioners going to doctors. We want them to pay for their drugs.' Obviously, this is purely a cost cutting exercise. On 19 August last in this House, in answer to a question from the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) the Minister said: First of all the decision was made on health grounds on the advice of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee which provides recommendations as to which drugs should go on the essential drug list in this country. Its advice in relation to the 46 formulations we are now discussing was that these were not drugs that could be justified on that essential drug list on the grounds of their minor therapeutic effect. He made a further point in that answer about concern being expressed on both sides of the House, and by medical authorities, about the increase in the usage of drugs by pensioners. The point needs to be made that there is no essential drug list in Australia. It is a nonsense for the Minister to state that these deletions have been made on health grounds. I make that charge for three reasons. First, all of the preparations have been, are and will continue to be, in major usage by the medical profession in this country and world-wide. Secondly, I understand that about 80 per cent of the delisted drugs will be added to the repatriation pharmaceutical benefits list. Thirdly, if the drugs are so detrimental to the health of pensioners, why will they continue to be so readily available to the community-and that includes pensioners on an over the counter basis in pharmacies and, in some cases, supermarkets. The question is immediately posed: Why has the Health Minister misled the Parliament and the public? If these deletions are made on health grounds, why is the medical profession able to prescribe them for repatriation patients but not pensioners? Why are they readily available all over this country and in other countries, and why have they not been withdrawn from sale altogether? If some of these drugs have been overprescribed by some members of the medical profession-and that does occur in some instances-why not tackle the problem at the doctor level? The Minister has approached this matter in a most devious and unprofessional way. While I recognise and accept the right of the Government to make decisions to add to or delete from the list, the Government and the Health Minister in particular deserve condemnation for the devious way in which it has been brought about. The simple matter is the Government said that cuts had to be made in the cost of pharmaceutical benefits. The deletion of these items is a cost cutting exercise. To achieve the cost cutting, hopefully with as little criticism and odium as possible, the Minister adopted a cowardly approach by hiding behind the PBAC. The Health Department went to the PBAC with a great list of drugs-a list, incidentally, much larger than that of the 45 items that eventually were deleted. In addition to the deleted analgesics and antihistamines, cough suppressants, expectorants and some vitamin and other products, the list contained reference to antacid and antifungal groups. In effect, the PBAC was advised that if it did not make substantial deletions the Minister himself would make them. The outcome is that the PBAC, comprising seven doctors and two pharmacists, has done the Minister's dirty work. The Minister has effectively achieved his goal by coercing and manipulating the PBAC to make the decisions, thereby taking the heat off himself and the Government. In effect, the PBAC has been a party to deceiving the public, probably unwittingly, but nevertheless it has done so, at the same time allowing itself to be compromised. One has only to examine a document that I have in my possession entitled `Deletions recommended at June 1986 meeting of PBAC' to realise that the reasons for the removal of most of these drugs really has nothing to do with health grounds. Included at the end of the list of 45 drugs are the words `The items above are from the list submitted to the Committee by the Department'. Certain words then appear: The following items were also recommended for deletion at the same meeting. A further six drugs are then listed for deletion. It is quite clear that the Minister wanted to effect cuts. The PBAC had its riding instructions through the Department and the cuts have occurred via its recommendations-a neat process, with the Minister hiding behind the PBAC's recommendations. One has only to look at the reasons for removal to see that there are really no strong health reasons for such deletions. Take the case of the analgesics, concerning which the following is stated: Aspirin products removed as, in general, they are used mainly for minor complaints. They are readily available over the counter without prescription, in smaller quantities from stores and supermarkets and in larger quantities from pharmacies. In general only a limited number of doses is required to treat a complaint, not the larger quantities available on NHS. I submit that there are no real health or medical reasons for their removal. As to the aspirin and codeine preparations, the following is stated: As for aspirin, in addition the 8 mg codeine content is reported to be a sub-therapeutic dose suggesting the combination is inappropriate. This is a joke. Almost without exception two or three tablets are taken as a dose, making the codeine content 16 or 24 milligrams. The British Pharmacopoeia lists the therapeutic dose as 10 to 60 milligrams for adults. It is strange that the dose and combination should be inappropriate when annually 949,000 prescriptions are written for pensioners and 216,000 are written for concession cardholders. Likewise, the reasons for the removal of the 21 antihistamines are obviously not health reasons: The oral antihistamines are mainly used in treatment of mild or trivial complaints such as allergic rhinitis, mild urticaria and head symptoms of colds and influenza. The conditions are often self-limiting or at most only requiring a short course of treatment before the symptoms resolve. Most of the drugs are readily available from pharmacies without the need for the prescription of a medical practitioner. The reasons for removal of the cough mixtures are just as convincing: These products are used in the treatment of minor complaints supposedly to alleviate the symptoms of cold and influenza. All are available without prescription. A large number of proprietary products of similar action are available from food stores and pharmacies. Although these products may give some symptomatic relief of symptoms there is some doubt as to their efficacy in helping resolve the actual disease process. With the deletion of aspirin, Paracetamol and associated analgesics, I predict substantial increases in the prescribing of Brufen-in 200 milligram and 400 milligram quantities-Indocid, Dolobid and Voltaren for joint pains and arthritic sufferers. These are more potent drugs and more expensive than the deletions. They are not, and should not, be first line treatment drugs, but with aspirin and Paracetamol off the list they could well become such. Perhaps the Minister should check out the PBAC statement that arthritis, for which aspirin et cetera is extensively used, is a minor complaint. Arthritis sufferers will tell anyone how minor it is! The non-availability of on-list anti- histamines could result in the prescribing of the more dangerous and potent oral steroid preparations. Apart from the objective of shifting the cost to pensioners, the changes may well prove to be more of a problem and more detrimental to health than at first meets the eye. My final question to the Minister is: Why did he have to be so devious about the changes? Why not be honest and tell pensioners straight out that we need to cut costs and therefore they, the pensioners, need to pay more for some of these drugs? One might ask the question: Can the Minister for Health be trusted? Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(1.21) —Today I wish to speak on a subject which is close to my heart. It is peace or, more particularly, the conflict that has been brought about by peace-the conflict that has been initiated by a few. I refer to what has been a continuous assault on those who wish to do no more than inform our children about the love of humanity which comes about by practising throughout our daily lives peace, not conflict. The year 1986 is the International Year of Peace. Many worthwhile projects have been funded and I agree that a few appear to be questionable. The opponents of peace naturally pick out a few examples and place all peace projects in the same basket. The most vocal and, I believe, unwarranted attack has been directed towards the area of peace studies within our education system. I would like to give you a few examples of the types of criticism directed towards those who would have the effrontery to propose such a radical idea as the teaching of peace to our children: Peace studies is a Marxist plot to exploit children. Most Australians, I am sure, would regard `peace studies' as a disturbing program of educational subversion. The subject has emerged as a new method of subtly undermining foreign and defence policies. Well researched and well documented examinations have clearly revealed that `peace studies' has been introduced into school syllabuses because of the conscious effort of Marxist and Communist-influenced teacher's unions . . . academic and peace movement activists to mobilise school children for their political operations. Peace studies has been shown to psychologically disarm and damage children, while de-authorising parents-a pernicious form of indoctrination designed to exploit the psychological and political vulnerabilities of school children. Another comment is headed `War on peace studies' and states: Tragic purpose The inclusion of `peace studies' in our school curriculum is a tragedy as it means that our education system is being used for a purpose foreign to democracy. Fear is being used as a psychological weapon to influence the young without regard to the ultimate harmful effect on them. Another comment is as follows: `Peace' studies target the Pacific Anyone in doubt about the insidious potential of `peace' studies in our schools needs only examine some of the available literature and kits on the Pacific region . . . Such publications first condition their young audiences to anti-Western bias by surveying the `sins' of European colonisation in the Pacific. The art is to blend legitimate historical detail with current radical left political objectives while glossing over, or ignoring, the legitimate interests of Western and other non-communist powers in the region. Source material listed are overwhelmingly from the anti-American, Anti-development, anti-uranium, radical left lobbies. There is still more: Conflict over year of peace funding. It is unfortunately a likely consequence of 1986 being designated as the United Nations International Year of Peace that there will be an increase in the amount of peace studies material being taught in Australian schools. Victoria has led the way in this development, with the Federal Government not far behind. The problem is that most of the peace studies material derives in one way or another from the peace movement and therefore lacks objectivity. The peace movement takes a particular view of how peace can best be maintained. It is a view with a strong anti-nuclear component and with strong unilateralist and anti-American overtones. It is a view which has never won the allegiance of more than a minority of the community and has never been endorsed by Government or Opposition in Australia . . . Activist political groups should not be funded by the taxpayer. Subsidising the peace movement is not a legitimate way for the Federal Government to spend our money. Another article states: Critical fallout as dollars for peace studies mushroom. Critics point out that peace studies literature and resources kits tend, in their net results, to. increase anxiety amongst school children; deny students the right to evaluate issues indepen- dently; undercut the relationship between student and parents; turn schools into re-education centres whose purpose is to mobilise students as peace activists, and subvert liberal educational principles by creating simplistic responses to complex questions. What are all these people afraid of? What makes our national papers, our national magazines, and some of our leaders within the community rise up in such outrage at this idea, this dangerous idea, in fact this traitorous thing called peace? I will tell honourable members but not in my own words, not in the words of some great scholar or learned statesman. I will tell them in the words of our children, our future. I would first like to read extracts from remarks by some young overseas people between the ages of 15 and 24 years. From Bangladesh comes the following: In the developing countries there is only one doctor for every 3,700 people but the figure for army personnel is one for every 250. This contribution comes from Egypt: When I ask a child who has not yet reached the age of five `What does peace mean?' he replies `I do not know'. If I ask him `What does war mean? `he says: `People fighting, that is dying'. The child knows much about war, but nothing about peace. This is from Jordan: Holding out a bunch of flowers the little girl said with a smile: `Buy flowers, sir. Flowers are the messengers of the heart'. `I do not want to buy' he said. `I would like to ask you a question. Do you think selling flowers is appropriate in present circumstances? Thousands of people are dying. Innocent people are being swept away. They are darkening childrens eyes. And you? You sell flowers! In a sad voice she said, `You are not the only one who is surprised about this. All the flowers in the world would not be enough to decorate the graves of those of whom you speak with such pity. The dew on the flowers reminds me of the tears of my young brother who lay in the dark sucking my mother's breast smeared with blood. I know why I sell flowers. Their beauty is the beauty of life. But it seems that you have not yet understood their message. . .' The following is a letter from an Australian student. She is 13 years old and originally came from Portugal. Her letter to me is responsible for this speech- Dear Mr Chynoweth, family, staff and electorate. This paper crane was made by a student, teacher, ethnic aid, counsellor, secretary, general assistant or canteen lady at the Cleveland Street Intensive Language and Reception Centre. It is one of one thousand paper cranes made in the memory of Sadako Sasaki a young Japanese girl who died of Leukaemia as a result of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. In Japanese culture one thousand folded cranes will grant you your deepest wish. In 1986, International Year of Peace, we have folded our cranes for peace. Are paper cranes, like this one-the dove bearing an olive branch-the insidious weapons of peace studies? If they are, they will surely win. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(1.30) —I rise in this grievance debate to ask the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) to declare, as soon as possible, the Pacific Highway a part of the national highway system. It is essential to upgrade the Pacific Highway to a four-lane, dual carriageway, divided road standard. There are compelling economic, demographic and safety reasons for the Pacific Highway, one of Australia's busiest highways, being upgraded to that level to overcome its present state of chronic disrepair. The Pacific Highway has been ignored in favour of other highways which have benefited from substantial redevelopment and upgrading through expenditure on them by the Federal and New South Wales governments. On the north coast, annual average daily traffic volumes in 1984 varied between 3,832 vehicles in Richmond River Shire and 11,341 vehicles in Port Stephens Shire. An average of 5,980 vehicles used the highway each day in 1984. These vehicles travelled an estimated 15,410 million kilometres along the highway in that year. Overtaking is impossible along 41 per cent of the highway north of Hexham and is effectively impossible along 53.7 per cent of the highway north of Hexham. The pavement condition on 47 per cent of the highway north of Hexham varies from very poor to fair. The highway is of great value to the tourist industry. In 1983-84 there were an estimated 5,477,500 visits to local government areas through which the highway directly passed. Tourists spent 21,442,000 nights away on these visits and expended $1.119 billion. The highway is also extremely important to agriculture. In 1983-84, local government areas served by the Pacific Highway included 7,267 farms, which produced agricultural commodities valued at $256.8m. Bad roads result in an increased likelihood of motor vehicle accidents causing death and injury. The cost of constructing, upgrading or maintaining roads at an optimum safety level can be offset against the budget set aside by government for the provision of medical, hospital and emergency services in the community. The Insurance Council of Australia has estimated that road crashes cost the Australian community nearly $3 billion per annum, or 2 per cent of the Australian gross domestic product. In 1983 this represented in human terms about 3,000 people killed and 100,000 people injured. Deaths caused by motor vehicle accidents ranked third, after heart and circulatory disease, as the main cause of death in 1983. By comparison with the cost of motor vehicle accidents to the whole Australian community the Commonwealth Government in 1985-86 allocated $1.25 billion for road building, maintenance and safety research. This figure does not include expenditure by the States or by the Commonwealth on the Australian bicentennial road development program. The Royal Automobile Club of Victoria estimated in 1983 that the cost of motor vehicle accidents was: For fatal accidents, $301,785 per fatality; for major injury accidents, $67,445; and for minor injury accidents, $7,760. Between 1983 and June 1986 the average weekly wage increased by 23.4 per cent, from $295 per week to $364 per week. Therefore, if one multiplies the 1983 figures by 23.4 per cent, the cost of motor vehicle accidents is estimated to be $372,403 per fatality for fatal accidents, $83,227 for major injury accidents and under $10,000 for minor injury accidents. Dollar values cannot be placed on factors such as pain and suffering, which are often the worst effects of motor vehicle accidents. In human terms, the average stay in hospital of a person admitted as a result of injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident is approximately two weeks. This is twice the national average time for hospital admission from all other causes. Some motor vehicle accident victims spend months and even years in hospitals and attending rehabilitation centres. With an average stay in hospital of 13.4 days, motor vehicle accident victims require annually the equivalent of 1,000 years of hospital treatment, thereby absorbing resources which could be used for other people. This additional work load is placed on hospital, medical, ambulance, nursing and rehabilitation services. With already overtaxed health services, the additional burden caused by road accidents is unwarranted and indefensible. One of the features of the National Roads and Motorists Association's 1986 survey of the Pacific Highway was the disclosure of the significant crash factors for motor traffic accidents on the highway. The survey stated that there were two predominant factors for accidents along the Pacific Highway, namely, wet weather and poor alignment of the road. Both of these are environmental factors, according to the analysis of motor traffic accidents carried out in an Indiana study. In New South Wales, 20 per cent of all crashes occurred in wet weather. However along the Pacific Highway north of Hexham the proportion of motor traffic accidents resulting from wet conditions varied from 31 per cent to 58 per cent of all accidents. Mr Braithwaite —There is very bad engineering too. Mr NEHL —Very bad engineering indeed. This is well above the State average-20 per cent of all crashes occurring in wet weather. Mr Blunt —It is also a high rainfall area. Mr NEHL —That is very true and special care is needed. In other words, along the Pacific Highway north of Hexham the driving conditions and environment do not facilitate safe driving in wet weather conditions. That is clearly unacceptable along a road which carries such heavy traffic volumes as does the Pacific Highway. Statistics compiled by the Traffic Authority of New South Wales indicate that in the seven years between 1979 and 1985 there were 24,406 motor vehicle crashes on the Pacific Highway. Of these 585 were fatal and resulted in the deaths of 698 people-an average of almost 84 fatal crashes and 100 fatalities each year. Mr Blunt —That is more than one a day. Mr NEHL —It is indeed. These are far, far higher figures than are experienced on either the Hume Highway or the New England Highway. But what about the cost of traffic accidents? If we apply the June 1986 estimate of motor vehicle accident costs, we find that between 1979 and 1985 the cost of all motor vehicle accidents was as follows: For 698 fatal crashes, $259m; for 15,122 crashes involving casualties, $451m; and for 14,000 accidents involving non-injury property damage only, $35m. Over a period of seven years, 1979 to 1985, the total cost was $746m. The cost of motor vehicle accidents was in excess of all money spent on the Pacific Highway and the F3 freeway during the period 1979 to 1984. What is clear is that all governments and the taxpayers bear an unnecessarily high bill for mopping up after accidents because of the initial low road investment. In other words, miserly expenditure on roads costs not only lives but also an immense amount of money following accidents. In 1983-84, $49m or $93,000 per kilometre, was spent on construction works along the Hume Highway in New South Wales, excluding the F5, while $30m, or only $46,500 per kilometre, was spent on construction works along the Pacific Highway north of Hexham. It is clear that there is a fundamental link between expenditure on roads and the level of accidents. The more that is spent on roads, the fewer the dead bodies, crushed and maimed human beings that result from traffic accidents, and the fewer the devastated Australian families there are as a consequence. In purely economic terms, the more that is spent on roads the smaller the cost to tax payers of high medical, hospital and emergency facilities, the smaller the cost of the court and police system and the smaller the economic cost to the whole community, including insurance premiums. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PUNCH(Barton)(1.41) —I rise this afternoon to draw the attention of those in this place and the electors of the constituency of Barton to the fact that the vast majority of Australian pensioners are today manifestly better off because of the policies of the Hawke Government, directly and absolutely. Mr Deputy Speaker, I do so because I believe that in the past the Government has been a little reticent in discharging its political function of informing pensioners of its record of reform and assistance to the aged in a number of different areas. Pensioners can hardly be blamed for not realising this because in the past our public relations have not been the best. The facts, however, demonstrate that the average Australian pensioner is much better off under the Hawke Labor Government and, indeed, that the Hawke Labor Government has a record in regard to pensioners and the care of the aged that any Government could be more than proud of. Under the Fraser regime the pension fell from 24.7 per cent of average weekly earnings in December 1975, under the Whitlam Government, to 22.7 per cent in March 1983, when the Hawke Government was elected. Mr Hollis —It was a disgrace. Mr Lee —That happened under Fraser. Mr PUNCH —As the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) and the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee), two well-known defenders of pensioners' rights in this place, have said, that was a disgrace. While Labor has not raised the pension to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings, it has turned this decline around so that pensions today stand at 24 per cent of average weekly earnings-a full 1.3 per cent higher, in terms of average weekly earnings, than was achieved by honourable members opposite. A second measure of this Government's attainments is the fact that since March 1983, in a period of three and a half years, the pension has risen by 7.3 per cent in real terms, that is, 7.3 per cent over and above the cost of living, as compared with 1.5 per cent in the seven years of the Fraser government. Those, I believe, are two statistics that leave this Government perfectly capable of saying that, insofar as the average pensioner is concerned, it has a record of which any government could be proud. The fact is that the Labor Party has not only retained the value of the pension but also actually increased it in real value terms. The priority given to the aged by the Australian Labor Party and this Government was demonstrated in particular in the last Budget-a Budget best described, I believe, as representing restraint with equity. The difference between us on this side of the House and those who sit opposite is that we are asking every Australian to kick the tin a little, stating that every Australian should bear part of the cost of our national recovery-unlike those opposite who seek to put a picket fence around the most privileged in our community and demand of others, such as pensioners, that they pay more. Under the last Budget pensioners did not get the real pay cut that the wage and salary earnings of this country got. Instead they got an eight week delay in their pension increase. How contrasting that is to what happened in the Fraser period when, in 1978-79, in economic circumstances that were less onerous, the Liberal Party and the National Party effectively imposed a 12-month pension freeze. This Government did not do that. It felt that pensioners had a priority over and above other Australians. The alternative budget of the New Right-the New Right being the people who pull the strings that are attached to the arms, legs and heads of the front bench on the other side of the House-in the recently published document of Mr Brian Buckley, put forward a strategy under which pensions would be discounted by an export depreciation factor. We have seen, almost as a weekly occurrence, spokesmen from the New Right issue public instructions to the Leader of the Opposition and his front bench. It is notable that the most recent instruction, that of yesterday from Mr Andrew Hay, comes at a time when I am drawing the attention of this House to what the alternative budget of the New Right would have been and what it would have meant for pensioners. The author of that alternative budget, Mr Brian Buckley, is, of course, a very close associate of Mr Andrew Hay, both having served on the staff of the former Liberal Treasurer the late Sir Phillip Lynch. In other areas of concern to pensioners, this Government has made massive progress. For instance, from December 1986, the threshold at which rent assistance to pensioners becomes payable will be increased from $10 to $15 a week. The maximum rate of rent assistance will apply if the rent paid is at least $45 a week. From 1 July of next year the separate income test for rent assistance will be scrapped. So pensioners who rent, pensioners who are most in need, will directly benefit from our policies. I could refer to a whole range of other achievements. The Government's indexation of pensioner fringe benefits, its introduction of the carer's pension, and the very real steps that it has taken in regard to care for the aged under the home and community care program and by way of nursing home and hostel care leaves those opposite looking bare indeed. They did not do any of these things. The Hawke Labor Government alone has taken these steps for the aged and it is about time that we started drawing more attention to that fact. That leads me to the question of the assets test. One promise being promulgated by those opposite is that they will abolish Labor's assets test. That test, as we have seen, has caught 34 millionaires, 558 pensioners with assets in excess of half a million dollars and 51,000 pensioners with assets of more than $100,000, over and above the limit. When the assets test was first introduced the then Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), was not able to contain his real belief that he basically agreed with the concept of an assets test. It was only when the then Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), leaned on him in a semi-public manner that the honourable member for Bennelong's position shifted. Certainly, a belief in an assets test would be far more consistent with the Leader of the Opposition's other views on social security matters than would his present stance. The alternative budget of the New Right calls, of course, for a harsher assets test. That is very interesting because the assets test highlights the very cynicism of honourable members opposite. I believe that the Opposition is carefully leaving open the opportunity to introduce its own assets test should it be elected to government in 1988. I draw to the attention of the House an article in the Australian of 28 August 1986, headed `Opposition leaves way clear for assets test' part of which I will read: The Federal Opposition yesterday left open the possibility of assets testing for aged pensions, despite a Coalition commitment to abolish the controversial test. A member of the Opposition's new task force on the aged, Senator Susan Knowles, confirmed the test would be scrapped in its present form, but said the policy had not yet been fully decided. Asked if assets could remain a criterion for determining aged pension eligibility, Senator Knowles said: `That may well be in the final analysis'. I believe that that slip by Senator Knowles is consistent with the Opposition's advertising which, if we look at it very carefully, says that the coalition will abolish Labor's assets test, that the coalition will abolish Labor's fringe benefits tax, that it will abolish Labor's capital gains tax. Now I have no doubt that honourable members opposite will maintain their priority for the wealthy retired at the expense of the vast majority of pensioners who benefit from the assets test being installed as part of the system. The Leader of the Opposition, in replying to the Budget, cut loose from the plethora of promises that he had made around the country in the last 12 months and said explicitly that the only policy left to him was that of cutting Labor's assets test. Obviously he will be forced to change that promise, too, but I also believe that the Opposition is running a very cynical campaign, which seeks to extract maximum political advantage from the assets test while knowing well that its own secret agenda will demand that it will, in fact, take assets into account in the distribution of pensioner benefits-in the unlikely event, of course, that it should be elected to government. I would take this opportunity to call upon honourable members opposite to come clean, to be honest about this issue because, quite frankly, if they have no such an intention, why do they not change their approach? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr EWEN CAMERON(Indi)(1.51) —I would like to take the opportunity during the grievance debate to point out some of the enormous difficulties that are being faced by local government throughout Australia today. Many of these difficulties have been, and are being, created by the gross ineptitude of the Hawke Government. Such burdens as the fringe benefits tax, crippling interest rates and high fuel costs have all been brought about as a direct result of this Government's inept policies. I am particularly concerned about the enormous pressure that is being placed on the 530 local governments throughout rural Australia today. As we all know, there is a very real economic problem in rural areas. A great many farmers are facing crisis and it is estimated that approximately 6,000 throughout Australia will walk off their farms in financial ruin this year. Unsympathetic State and Federal government policy is forcing local government to turn to its ratepayers for increased funding to maintain services. The poor old ratepayer, who is also the poor old taxpayer, cops it every time. The ratepayer and taxpayer are the bottom line and suffer greatly when rotten government policies are implemented. The effect of the fringe benefits tax on local government will be enormous. The Federal Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, (Mr Uren), has admitted that the tax could adversely affect local government, while councils in more isolated areas may be particularly disadvantaged. The Minister has asked his staff to monitor the effects of the fringe benefits tax on local government councils, and I believe now realises the most serious financial effect that the tax will have. It is estimated that 14 per cent of the total tax collected will be generated from the combined payments, by Federal, State and local governments. As I have already indicated, the taxpayer and the ratepayer will be the bunny once again. By the way, it is estimated that an extra 590 Australian Taxation Office staff will be needed to administer the tax. It will certainly be very interesting to see what sort of a hole will be made in the tax collected by the need to pay such extra staff. The extremely high interest rates prevailing in Australia today as a result of the Hawke Government's policies are naturally having a most detrimental effect on local government borrowings. Treasurer Keating's record, which has now had the effect of reducing our investment rating from AAA to AA1 will most certainly lead to a further drying up of loan funds. This, of course, will maintain high interest rates for some time to come. Once again, the ratepayer bears the burden. High fuel costs, particularly, affect local government adversely. The large amount of outside machinery required to maintain roads and other assets places a great cost on local government today. The fuel required to run this machinery attracts the same heavy Hawke Government taxes as does fuel used by industry, commerce and private motorists. No concessions are given to local government. The Hawke Government was elected with a promise, among many, to reduce the price of petrol by 3c a litre. That promise too has been blatantly broken. Not only has the Hawke Government wiped out half the benefits of the 50 per cent fall in world oil prices this year. It has, by steadily increasing petrol taxes, imposed a further 3c a litre by way of fuel excise tax. This alone will give the Government $715m more in revenue. Petrol taxes this year have risen by nearly 14c a litre-representing a rise from 10c to 23.8c a litre or, in other words, an increase of 140 per cent. The Budget estimates that the revenue from petrol taxes will amount to 95.9 per cent more than it did in 1985-86. These colossal increases in fuel excise and loadings by the record taxing Hawke Government have created enormous increases in costs to local government. Once again the ratepayer must cough up hard-earned income in increased rates. Roads and footpaths are traditionally the direct responsibility of local government. In recent times the Federal Government has played a most important role in providing funds to assist local government to construct and maintain roads within its individual areas. Largely as a result of State and Federal Government policies over the years, the cost of constructing and maintaining these roads has risen enormously. State and Federal governments have continually endeavoured to reduce their contribution to this funding, while blaming each other for being miserly and irresponsible. Individual councils and collective local government organisations have continually gone cap in hand to governments seeking increased funding for roads. For the year 1986-87 there is to be a 4 per cent reduction by the Hawke Government in road funding across Australia. In 1985 the Australian land transport program was introduced with much fanfare by the Minister for Transport, (Mr Peter Morris). It was hailed as a great step forward because it was indexed against inflationary movements, which thereby provided for local government a predictable basis for road funding over the next five years. In July, the Federal Government reneged on its promise-yet another broken promise by the Hawke Government-and the Australian land transport program suffered a reduction in funds of 4 per cent in real terms. These changes to the program have reduced funding to levels well below what is needed to keep pace with our high inflation rate and the rapid deterioration of a great many country roads. Local government will suffer most severely from this alteration in funding. Allowing for inflation, this will be the third year in a row that local government has experienced reductions in road finance. It is vital for local government to have a predictable road funding budget in order to plan ahead and function efficiently. The construction and maintenance of our road systems should receive top priority, and it is essential that the Government recognise this and take a more constructive approach in its economic policy. It must basically reduce non-essential expenditure, which will enable it to provide more funding for vital areas such as road funding as well as give some tax relief. That, of course, would take some of the pressure off the poor overloaded taxpayer and ratepayer. Madam Speaker, when I refer to a reduction in non-essential expenditure, I refer to the quite extraordinary sums of taxpayers' money that have been forked out by the big spending Hawke Government. I refer to such things as `researching the Boab tree population and festival activities for Boab Week and Mango Mania' at a cost of $115,000, and the granting of $123,000 to gay publications co-operatives with which to produce the homosexual magazines Outrage and Gay Community News. These are but two examples of the wasteful expenditure that has been revealed by the efforts of the Opposition's Waste Watch Committee. Many millions of dollars have been, and continue to be, dished out for projects which would be non-essential if we were experiencing an affluent economy, let alone the very serious economic problems that we are now facing. The future for local government funding is most serious and I urge the Government to face up to the problem and implement policies which will not only assist local government but also assist Australians as a whole. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —Madam Speaker, I have just had handed to me a copy of a letter addressed by you and Mr President to Mr Barrie Cassidy, the President of the Parliamentary Press Gallery, referring to the behaviour of journalists at the main entrance to Parliament House. While I understand that, according to your letter, there have been some examples of behaviour which is `totally unacceptable and a poor reflection on the Parliament', the matter concerns me because in the penultimate paragraph of your letter you state: If such behaviour recurs, we will have no alternative but to ban all journalists and camera crews from waiting or conducting interviews on the steps to Parliament House. We on this side of the House find that suggestion totally unacceptable. We believe that members of this place have a right to be interviewed by people in the precincts of Parliament House and within Parliament House. I ask you, therefore, for an explanation of the basis on which you would propose such action, and perhaps you could explain to us the nature of the misbehaviour which would lead you to consider such extraordinary action. Madam SPEAKER —I inform the House that I will report back to it at a later hour. Mr CARLTON —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Mr Hawke —Hooray! They have found the economy at last. Mr CARLTON —The Prime Minister should make the most of it; he will not be there for long. I think I am being attacked by a troglo- dyte. I refer the Treasurer to statements in the Prime Minister's speech yesterday to the Business Council of Australia about the need to internationalise the Australian economy and the recognition that investment by Australian companies overseas can also be a spur to Australian exports. Given that Australia is a net capital importer and not a capital exporter like the United Kingdom, the United States, West Germany and Japan, that Australia will have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, and that Australia currently has a massive external imbalance and trading difficulties, how can the Treasurer reconcile the Prime Minister's desire to internationalise our economy with the introduction of a foreign tax credit system? Will not the foreign tax credit system make Australian companies internationally uncompetitive, be a disincentive to investing overseas, and therefore fly in the face of the Prime Minister's wishes? Mr KEATING —The answer is no, it will not, because most of the countries with which they compete operate under foreign tax credit systems and therefore there would be no competitive disadvantage. Of course, it will mean that tax avoidance driven decisions are no longer taken and the balance of decisions to be taken in the economy-that is, investment abroad vis-a-vis investment in Australia-are ones that will be properly taken in the face of the potentials of those investments rather than some tax driven incentive which existed in the absence of a foreign tax credit system, and which exploited tax havens and low tax countries. If we are to get a balance between investment in this country and investment abroad and truly internationalise the Australian economy, as the Prime Minister said, so that decisions of choice about investment opportunity may be taken, those decisions ought to be about the commercial value of the opportunity and not the tax avoidance value. Mr CHYNOWETH —Is the Prime Minister aware of recent calls for a 30 per cent top rate of income tax? Will the Government consider adopting this proposal? Mr HAWKE —I have seen reports of extreme elements in our society calling for a 30 per cent maximum income tax rate. Madam Speaker, as you will know, proposals of this kind are not new. Many members of the National Party of Australia have advocated such a policy. Indeed, it is the official policy of the National Farmers Federation. Ordinary Australians must be left wondering who those calling for such a policy actually represent. The facts ought to be understood. For the purposes of revenue neutrality, upon abandoning the tax free threshold, the flat rate of tax would need to be at least 25c in the dollar, which means, very simply, that anyone earning less than average weekly earnings would have to pay more tax. That is, 60 per cent of ordinary, average, honest Australian taxpayers, under this proposal from these extreme elements, would have to pay more tax. In light of the fact that members of the National Party in this place, alleging that they represent rural interests, embrace this proposal, let us consider the farmers' tax position under such a proposal. We know that ordinary farmers are having a tough time. In fact, the National Farmers Federation estimates that average farm income is now $6,700 per annum. Under the flat tax proposal that has been put forward by these extreme elements, the average farmer would have to pay $1,675 more in tax than he currently pays. That is what is involved in the embrace of this proposal. The people who purport to represent farmers are putting forward a tax policy which would mean an increase in the tax impost upon farmers. Madam Speaker, when you understand this fact, you have to ask: Who would be the beneficiaries of this proposal? It is no coincidence, of course, that the beneficiaries of this proposal would be exactly the sorts of extremists who are putting it forward. They want the great majority of wage earners to bear a much greater tax burden so that they can bear less. As with all of the extremist solutions that have been put forward, it is something for the elite at the expense of the average Australian. While these people, who are embraced to a very considerable extent by the Leader of the Opposition and those opposite, are adopting these sorts of policies, this Government is going carefully and equitably about the task of ensuring that the ordinary, honest Australian will have his or her tax burden relieved. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I remind him of his statement yesterday that he would make taxation not just an issue in the next election but the major issue. In the light of that declaration, I ask the Prime Minister whether he will make the opening contribution to this debate by telling Australian families whether, even after the promised tax cuts that are to be introduced next year, a man on average weekly earnings supporting a wife and two children will pay an average tax rate of 20.5 per cent, while the relevant rate when the former Government left office was 17 1/2 per cent. Mr HAWKE —There are three simple points to be made in response to the Leader of the Opposition. The first is that, under the policies of the previous Government, for which in the economic area the current Leader of the Opposition had major responsibility, his contribution to the welfare of the average Australian was to throw him or her out of a job. People did not have a job from which they were able to obtain income upon which they could pay tax. So the first point to be made is that in the last year in which the previous Government was in office and the Leader of the Opposition was Treasurer of this country 250,000 jobs disappeared. That was his contribution. The second point is this: Under the approach of this Government, by 1 July next year tax rates will be significantly lower than the tax rates under the Leader of the Opposition when he was Treasurer. That is simply because he allowed the Commonwealth revenue to be deprived of billions of dollars as he callously allowed members of an elite minority in this country to avoid their taxation obligations. The third point to be made is that, if one is talking about the welfare of these people, what the Opposition would seek to do would be to impose an absolute wage freeze upon workers in this country. So as well as having the burden of increased tax rates, they would also have significantly lower levels of income and significantly less opportunity of ever being in employment at all. Ms FATIN —Has the Treasurer noted the broad support which exists in the community for the Government's 1986-87 Budget? Can the Treasurer comment on the clarity and correctness of the Government's fiscal and wages policies compared with the vagueness and irresponsibility of those of the Opposition? Mr KEATING —As the Opposition has attested, by obliging the Government in failing to question any of the assumptions underpinning the Budget, it has accepted the Budget for what it is, that is, a first class effort to make the economic adjustments which this country deems necessary and requires. My experience during the last three weeks since the Budget was brought down is that there is a very broad support in the general community, amongst the work force and Australian business for the changes proposed in the Budget. They understand that this Government has seriously attempted to put the major adjustments into place, that we have removed one of the two major imbalances bequeathed to us by the former Government, that is, the Budget deficit, which we have reduced from 5 per cent of gross domestic product to around 1.4 per cent, and that the cast of the Budget is such that it will assist the current account in changing back to a position which more equates with its levels over the last 10 to 15 years. That is in marked contrast to the policies of the Opposition which has no fiscal policy and no wage policy. The Opposition seeks the leadership of this country without having any effective budgetary policy in prospect or any effective anti-inflation policy because it has no wage policy whatsoever. When quizzed about how it would balance the budget, as the Leader of the Opposition says he would, the shadow Treasurer said at the National Press Club: It is not in the public interest that an Opposition geld itself by announcing in intricate detail which interests it might challenge with its expenditure cuts. In other words, the Opposition will not lay down any outlays cuts which the Government has been forced to do for five months. The Opposition will not run the gamut of public opinion and interest groups by taking something from them. The Opposition claims it will have a decent fiscal policy but it does not have the courage or the decency to say where that fiscal policy will rest. The shadow Treasurer stated: . . . thus inviting the maximum degree of opposition from the interest groups directly affected. One has to ask the question: If the Opposition does not have the courage to announce outlays changes in opposition would it ever have the courage to outline them in government? The answer is it would not because it did not when it was in government and it never will. What would happen is that fiscal policy would again deteriorate. We have seen what happened when the former Treasurer took outlays up 3 per cent as a proportion of GDP to 29 per cent in his last three Budgets and in those Budgets he had tax receipts at a record 24.5 per cent of gross domestic product. That is what we would see. We have seen the Opposition in government. We have seen the honourable member for Bennelong with his hands on the levers and we have seen the results. There was an increase of three percentage points of GDP to 29 per cent of outlays under his last three Budgets and receipts frozen at a record 24.5 per cent of GDP for the last three years he was Treasurer. When he was asked what he would do about fiscal policy, he said: `We will not tell you because we will be gelded by the interest groups'. So much for decency and courage on the part of the Opposition. Of course that says nothing about the $5.9 billion of tax promises which are still standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. In one of the most glib statements on record, he said in this reply to the Budget, in a Nixonian phrase, that his outlays commitments were no longer operative but, by implication, he said that his receipts commitments were still completely operative. Let me just recount them. He would institute income splitting which would cost $2.7 billion; institute a flatter tax system by dropping the 49c rate to 40c for individuals and companies and this would cost $1.6 billion; abolish the fringe benefits tax which would cost $325m; abolish the capital gains tax which would cost $5m; abolish tax on lump sum superannuation which would cost $80m; reinstitute entertainment expenses which would cost $310m; reinstitute negative gearing which would cost $50m; have a full flow-on of world oil price reductions which would cost $400m; abolish sales tax on oils and lubricants which would cost $66m; abolish tax on new oil which would cost $165m; provide child care rebates which would cost $108m; restore income equalisation deposits and in-out averaging which would cost $23m and abolish the wine tax which would cost $107m. This totals $5.9 billion. The Leader of the Opposition would have the public believe that with an extra $5.9 billion of standing and committed revenue policies in some way the coalition would run a decent fiscal policy. It would not; it would blow the gains of the last three years right out the door. We have a joke of a wages policy by the Opposition compared with the wage flexibility which this Government has given Australia. It has given a greater change in relative wage outcomes in three years than has any country we trade with. Our position is massively different from that of any country we trade with. In contrast, what do we have from the Opposition? On 3 September the Leader of the Opposition said: I can totally free up and deregulate the IR system for every firm with less than 50 people if you allow every employer that employs less than 50 people subject only to paying a minimum hourly rate. In other words, if one employs fewer than 50 people one can pay an Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission determined wage. There is no downward flexibility; it is all up. This is the so-called flexibility! When the shadow Treasurer was asked at the Press Club about what he would do to get wage changes, he said: We would have the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. We would be arguing what would be sensible before the Commission. They would be handling the bulk of the wage settlements. That is the old cake and eat it routine. The Opposition says: `The Arbitration Commission is for the big aggregate changes such as depreciation; the scourge of centralisation is okay. We will go to the Commission for wages depreciation but we will let people with fewer than 50 employees opt for a minimum wage determined by the Arbitration Commission'. That is the current coalition's wage policy. So on wage policy and fiscal policy the Opposition is a standing disgrace, a joke, and one would not think that it could hold up its head. Is it any wonder that the Leader of the Opposition squibbed the opportunity I gave him for a debate on Four Corners or 60 minutes to discuss these issues? The old grinner dropped straight out because he knew that he would be massacred with his wages policy and his fiscal policy. What he wants to do is stand up at Question Time and ask questions about my travelling allowance. Good on you, pal. You will need more than that. Mr N.A. Brown —I refer the Prime Minister to his death bed conversion yesterday to the cause of eliminating restrictive work practices after the Opposition and those whom he takes pleasure in calling `lunatics and troglodytes' have been advancing that cause for years. In view of the Prime Minister's new found enthusiasm, will he now commit his Government to the removal of the most restrictive work practice of all, namely, the maintenance in Australia of a system of compulsory unionism which is clearly opposed by the overwhelming majority of Australians? Mr HAWKE —The hypocrisy of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, coming as he does from a profession which probably has the most restrictive trade practices of any union in the country, really takes some hurdling. What about the restrictive trade practices of the honourable member's trade union, of the barristers and lawyers in this country? Those restrictive trade practices give lawyers and barristers an income of $1,000 or $1,500 a day. What hypocrisy! Having nailed this hypocrite opposite, let us deal with this question of latter day conversion. I have for a very considerable period, before we ever heard of the New Right in this country, made it clear that, in the economic circumstances confronting Australia at this time, none of us-whether we be workers in the factory, managers in the factory, owners or shareholders-can assume that the practices that have emerged, not necessarily with fault on one side or the other, which have been considered to be appropriate to earlier, more halcyon days, can be regarded as appropriate today. I have been saying that for a considerable period, and I certainly said it before the New Right was heard of. It is very significant that we should understand that those in the community who are really concerned about improving the situation in this country have welcomed the initiative that this Government has taken. The Business Council of Australia, the Confederation of Australian Industry and the Australian Council of Trade Unions have indicated that, because they have a real concern about improving the condition of this country, they want to make a serious effort in this regard. The thing which distinguishes the people in the business community and the people in the trade union movement-the people who really want to get this country going again-is the fact that they have a real concern. The Leader of the Opposition does not want the country's position to improve. The essence of what he said in his New York interview when he saw what he referred to as the hard times was `These bad times will suit me'. He said: `These are the times for me'. It is no wonder that he is disappointed when he sees the responsible people in the community, the leaders of the business community and of the trade union movement saying: `Yes, tough times have been imposed upon this country and we regard it as appropriate and entirely possible that we can get this country going in a way which will enable it to meet and overcome these challenges'. Mr N.A. Brown —Now, what about the question? Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr HAWKE —That is why the business community, the trade unions and this Government- Mr N.A. Brown —What about compulsory unionism? Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr N.A. Brown —I asked him about-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has now been three times called to order. Mr N.A. Brown —I am sorry. Madam SPEAKER —I suggest to him that he heed the Chair. Mr N.A. Brown —I was just asking him to get on to compulsory unionism. Madam SPEAKER —I warn the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He will not treat the Chair with disrespect. Mr HAWKE —That is the distinction. The decent people-- Mr N.A. Brown —It is like South Africa. Madam SPEAKER —I name the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Motion by Mr Young put: That the honourable member for Menzies be suspended from the service of the House. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 57 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 14 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Keating, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Keogh, L. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lamb, A. H.Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V.Brumby, J. M. Lee, M.Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J.Charles, D. E. McHugh, J.Charlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P.Cohen, B. Mayer, H.Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P.Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G.Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F.Gayler, J. Saunderson, J.Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D.Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W.Hand, G. L. Snow. J. H.Hawke, R. J. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W.Jakobsen, C. A. Young, M. J.Jenkins, H. A. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hunt, R. J. D.Beale, J. H. Jull, D. F.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S.Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J.Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Donald Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ewen Miles, C. G.Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C.Cobb, M. R. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. Nehl, G. B.Connolly, D. M. Peacock, A. S.Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M.Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J.Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC.Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N.Fischer, Tim Smith, W.Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele Watson, D. J. H.Hawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Hodges, J. C. Free, R. V. Porter, J. R.Staples, P. R. Halverson, R. J.Kelly, R. J. Shipton, R. F.Griffiths, A. G. Shack, P. D.Dawkins, J. S. Everingham, P. A. E.Cleeland, P. R. White, P. N. D.Humphreys, B. C. Sullivan, K. J.Jacobi, R. Katter, R. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Menzies is suspended from the service of the House for 24 hours. The honourable member for Menzies thereupon withdrew from the chamber. Mr HAWKE —Madam Speaker, I conclude by saying that, neither under the law of this country nor under the policy of this Government, is there the practice of compulsory unionism in this country. In fact, one of the few areas in which compulsory unionism operates is in the profession of the honourable member who asked the question, and he has been a total and willing, involved participant in the compulsory unionism of his own profession. Ms MAYER —Is the Minister for Defence aware of the comments by the shadow Minister for Defence that he believes that the new construction submarine project should be suspended to allow consideration of buying nuclear-powered boats on the ground that they would have greater deterrent value than either of the submarines currently being assessed by the Royal Australian Navy? Is the Minister aware of any justification for this course of action, and what would be the effect on the submarine project, Australian industry, the defence budget and our military force structure if the shadow Minister's ideas were acted on? Mr BEAZLEY —I did notice the comments that were attributed to the Leader of the National Party in regard to suspending the submarine project and acquiring a nuclear-powered submarine. He has also said on different occasions that, in covering for that suspension, we should refit the Oberons and set them loose again for whatever number of years this action would take. Naturally, I view those comments with considerable disappointment. The propositions that the Leader of the National Party has put forward are in conflict with the advice given to us by the Navy as to what is the appropriate course of action to be pursued by this Government in regard to replacement submarines. Advice to me from the Navy is that modern diesel electric submarines were chosen in preference to nuclear-powered submarines for the priority tasks of surveillance, intelligence gathering, maritime strike and support for maritime operations in our region, and that conventional submarines are well suited to Australia's strategic environment and offer capability advantages over nuclear submarines. That is the advice of the Navy on the capability of the submarines we are seeking and the correctness of our course in that regard. Of course, one can go a lot further than that in adopting a critical attitude to the views that have been expressed by the Leader of the National Party. In the first place, there is now very substantial support in the community for the industrial package which has come in with the submarine project and for the way in which we have taken that decision. The decision to acquire those six submarines is offering a considerable amount of encouragement, both to the heavy engineering sectors of Australian industry and to the electronics sector in this country. There is a substantial anticipation of both an improved capability in regard to those industries as a result of the submarines and a substantial anticipation of substantial resources going to those industries as a result of acquiring those submarines. Because of the stop-go type policies that have been pursued in the past, understandably industry has a certain tentativeness in coming into defence projects. I must say that, in this case, that tentativeness has been set aside. Even though the Leader of the National Party can do nothing about this project, it is a matter of disappointment that he should seek to cast doubt on the project in circumstances now where a massive number of Australian companies are involved in its planning and, as I said, are anticipating acquiring substantial capabilities as they go about it. He has suggested that we should refit the Oberons, which are now a very old technology submarine indeed, and put them into service which could mean that they may be in service for up to 30 or 40 years. By the time that is achieved, what we will have will be, instead of a very effective deterrent capability as well as a defensive capability, which we have now and which we will have with the new submarines, something akin to an underwater jazz band operating around our northern waters. He makes a great point of being critical of the Government in regard to whether or not we should pursue deterrent or defensive strategies. One of the few elements of our defence forces which are more than on the margin in the area of deterrence in fact happens to be the submarines, which constitute a very substantial part of our maritime strike component. That would be weakened by a decision to move away from them. The Leader of the National Party was also critical as to whether or not this represented a small upgrade on the technology we already have in operation. It is a massive upgrade on that technology. When these submarines come into operation they will be, not only in their general operating characteristics but also in their war-fighting systems, state of the art submarines. When these submarines are in operation, they are going to be not only among the most effective conventional submarines in the world but among the most effective submarines all told. A very important commitment by this Government is locked up in the submarine project in ensuring that capable defences are going to be provided for this country in the long term. Then we come to the question of cost, raised by the honourable member in her question. Nuclear submarines are some 30 per cent more expensive to acquire and would cost considerably more to maintain and support than do conventional submarines because of the need to provide a suitable infrastructure to build, maintain and support nuclear-powered submarines. Such an industry does not exist in this country. One could not possibly justify setting up such an industry on the basis of the purchase of half a dozen submarines alone, and without that industry we would be left with the same disadvantages we have experienced in regard to the Oberons. We do not have the effective support capability for the Oberons in this country that we feel we need. This new project offers us the ability to achieve exactly that. Go down any other road and the road one goes down will leave us still in a substantial situation of dependence. Of course, the funds are not there to do what the honourable gentleman has suggested. The Opposition has made quite clear that, despite the complaints it has made about what we depend on defence, it will spend no more. The Opposition has managed to combine that commitment with a whole series of detailed commitments for increasing expenditures. Of course, once the Opposition comes to the position where it is obliged to compromise those two issues, what will come forward is its normal confusion in this area. I say, in conclusion, that the project we have is on-stream, is on time and is a project which enjoys the support of a massive number of people involved in Australian industry. It will be achieved and contracts will be signed at the appropriate time. We will have defence capability that is effective, and that will be no thanks to the Opposition whatsoever. Mr HICKS —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's statement last night and on other occasions that the Government has taken measures to reduce farm costs. I ask: Is it true that the 2 per cent interest rate since July and last weekend's 20 per cent hike in on-farm distillate costs have added $250m a year to the costs of the farm sector, which is equivalent to one-quarter of total net farm incomes? I further ask: What has come of the Prime Minister's commitment to ease the administrative burden of the fringe bene- fits tax on farmers? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the honourable gentleman for his question. The facts are quite simple. When we came to office, the increase in farm costs in the previous year had been of the order of 11 per cent. We have more than halved that rate of increase in farm costs. The Opposition cannot have it both ways. It cannot rely on the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and the Bureau of Statistics half the time and quote their figures in support of its case and then, when the facts produced by those same sources show that the Government has more than halved farm costs, choose not to believe them. The Opposition cannot have it both ways. Mr O'KEEFE —My question is directed also to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister advise the House what has been the Government's reaction to the disaster at the Kinross gold-mine in South Africa? Mr HAWKE —I think the House as a whole will have been saddened to learn of the disaster at the Kinross gold-mine in which at least 176 miners, the large majority of them black, lost their lives and 235 were injured. On behalf of the Government, I sent a message to Mr Cyril Ramaphosa, the General Secretary of the South African National Union of Mineworkers. I said that I was deeply shocked to hear of the tragic disaster at the Kinross gold-mine and that the human toll in terms of lives and suffering to the members of the union and other mineworkers in this, South Africa's worst gold-mine disaster, has profoundly affected all Australians. I extended my deepest sympathy and that of the people of Australia, to the relatives, friends and fellow union members of those killed and injured. In regard to Mr Ramaphosa's call for a commission of inquiry into safety in the mining industry, I expressed the hope that his concerns in this area could be addressed fully and that the chances of such an event occurring again could be reduced to a minimum. I hope that members on both sides of the House join me in this expression of sympathy and support to the victims of this massive tragedy. Mr SLIPPER —My question is also directed to the Prime Minister. The Minister for Trade was reported in the media recently as encouraging business to invest overseas. Does the Minister's recommendation, along with the down- grading by Moody's Investor Services Inc. of Australia's credit rating, prove that under Labor this country is no longer a good investment risk? Was the Minister's advice a suggestion to business that it should get any remaining funds out of the country before the Treasurer's banana republic predictions become a reality? Mr HAWKE —The honourable member for Fisher asked a question which included a reference to Moody's decision. I suppose it is as well that I try to get the message through to the honourable gentleman, though one must be somewhat of an optimist in trying to do so. I think a number of references have been made by my friend and colleague the Treasurer to the assessments that have been made. I refer to the statement by Roger Knye, the man behind the Australian desk at the New York rating agency. This is the agency's statement, not the Government's. Listen to it and, if possible, understand it. The quote is as follows: Moody's think the Budget was a brave one. In a rating review we take into account the wisdom or lack thereof of the country's economic managers. One of the positive features of the Australian scene is the intelligent guiding of the ship of state. There is the answer. There is the assessment from Moody's itself and from the commentators. That is one of the positive features that was contained in Moody's statement to set against the externally imposed problem for Australia, namely, the quality and character of the economic management in Australia. Those are the facts that make nonsense of the honourable gentleman's question and the assumptions underlying it. If the honourable gentleman wants a further assessment of comparative quality of economic management, I refer him again to the assessment of the Opposition's own person, Mr John Hyde, who in his address in August said that this Government had provided better economic management for this country than that provided by his Government, the Government of the Liberal Party and the National Party. Those are the facts. Fortunately, the people of this country and the institutions of this country, the business community and the trade unions are going to set about the task, in co-operation with the Government, of meeting the challenge. The real Australians are about getting the country going and recognising that a challenge has been created for us. Together we can beat it, and real Australians treat with contempt the miserable attitude of Opposition members. Mr GAYLER —I address my question to the Minister for Communications. Can he provide the House with details concerning the extent of Telecom Australia's cross-subsidy from profit- able to unprofitable areas, particularly bearing in mind the rural areas of this nation? Mr DUFFY —Many honourable members will be aware that during the last parliamentary recess I released a report, recently provided by Telecom, giving details of the extent and the direction of the internal subsidy provided within Telecom's charging structure. It is important to understand that Telecom's policy is directed at making telephone services available as widely and affordably as possible. That policy has the complete and wholehearted support of the Government. It is obvious that the cross-subsidy would be incapable of being sustained except in circumstances where Telecom's position, as the sole provider of public switch services, was protected. Yet in that climate the Leader of the Opposition, addressing the National Press Club last year, is on record as saying: I think substantial portions of Telecom can be privatised. If ever there was a monopoly that was ripe for the busting, it is the monopoly now held by Telecom. The honourable member for Mackellar said something similar on 28 July. He said: If it is true that local calls are subsidised by overcharging on long distance calls, then that is hardly an argument for not allowing competition on long distance calls. As the leading spokesman on these matters, the so-called economic spokesman for the Liberal Party is so hostile to the concept of cross-subsidy, applying as it has traditionally in this country, I thought it would be both interesting and necessary to have a look at the level of cross-subsidy per telephone service per year enjoyed by subscribers in the Telecom districts most referable to the electorates of members of the National Party. The reason for this is that their silence on this issue has been deafening. I should like to examine the position of the Leader of the National Party first, the right honourable member for New England. The average subsidy of his constituents is $531 per year per service. The constituents of the honourable member for Kennedy are subsidised on average $13 a year. The constituents of the honourable member for Dawson receive an average subsidy of $14. The constituents of the honourable member for Groom receive a subsidy of $86. There is a subsidy of $90 for the constituents of the honourable member for Riverina-Darling. The subsidy for the constituents of the honourable member for Gippsland is $115. It is $246 for the constituents of the honourable member for Gilmore. The constituents of the honourable member for Fisher and for the honourable member for Fairfax receive a subsidy of $278. The subsidy for the constituents of the honourable member for Farrer is $296. It is $302 for the constituents of the honourable member for Cowper and the honourable member for Richmond. For the constituents of the honourable member for Page it is $420. It is $431 for the constituents of the honourable member for Hinkler and the honourable member for Wide Bay. For the constituents of the honourable member for Gwydir and for those of the honourable member for Parkes it is $508. Finally, the subsidy for the constituents of the honourable member for Maranoa is $1,083. In the interests of total fairness and completeness it should be said that there are three National Party members whose Telecom districts are not subsidised: The district represented by the honourable member for Lyne barely breaks even; the district represented by the honourable member for Mallee is profitable to the extent of $9; the district represented by the honourable member for Murray, $19 a service. It is interesting to note that the honourable member for Murray was the only one from the National Party who had the courage to stand up on this issue. In fact, his constituents were not being subsidised. What happened to him? There was a rebellious outburst from the honourable member, for which I congratulate him. It was a revolution which was put down very quickly by the dries in the Liberal Party. It is also interesting to know that the honourable member for Goldstein has prepared a draft coalition policy on telecommunications, but it has yet to be adopted by the coalition leadership. Like so many of the secret documents in the Liberal Party, that document is about the place and I am able to inform the House that in its draft form it completely repudiates the privatisation nonsense as espoused by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton). Certainly, there is no question as to why that document is still in a draft form and has not been adopted. The people of rural Australia had better understand that it is about time that the people here who purport to represent them stood up to be counted. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —For the information of honourable members I present a document on portfolio program statements for 1986-87, together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Finance. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport) —Pursuant to section 32 of the Inter-state Commission Act 1975, I present the annual report of the Inter-state Commission for 1985-86. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —Pursuant to sub-section 68 (4) of the Archives Act 1983, I present the annual report of the Australian Archives for 1985-86. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —Pursuant to sub-section 68 (4) of the Archives Act 1983, I present the annual report of the Advisory Council of the Australian Archives for 1985-86. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services) —Pursuant to section 10 of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976, I present the 1985-86 report of the Tasmanian State Grants Commission which contains the Commission's recommendations for distribution of Commonwealth income tax funds to individual councils. On 16 September 1985 I approved the recommendation of the Tasmanian State Grants Commission and payments to Tasmania were made on 19 September 1985 by the Treasury. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —Yes. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr HOWARD —The Treasurer (Mr Keating), in the course of answering a question at Question Time today from his own side of the House, made the quite erroneous statement, that I had squibbed a debate with him about the economy on the Four Corners program. I would like to inform the House of the correct circumstances of that matter. I was approached by the producer of Four Corners, Mr Olle, a couple of weeks ago with a proposition that there be a discussion on the economy involving the Treasurer and myself and a number of private sector economists and some journalists. I indicated to Mr Olle that I would be prepared, as Leader of the Opposition, to engage in a debate about the economy with my opposite number who is not the Treasurer but the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I said that the correct person to debate the Treasurer from our side of the Parliament was my colleague the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton). Mr Olle said that he would go back to the Prime Minister to find out whether the Prime Minister would be prepared to debate me. He came back to me and said: `John, we have a very difficult position. Hawke won't debate you and Keating won't debate Carlton; so I haven't got a debate'. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has shown the House how he has been misrepresented. He is now debating the issue. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation on the same issue. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr KEATING —Yes. I claim to have been misrepresented by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). I did offer to debate the Leader of the Opposition. Again, I offer to debate him any time, anywhere, any place. Mr Howard —I want the organ grinder. I have dealt with you for years. Why don't you debate Carlton? Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr Howard —You have not got the courage to debate Carlton, have you? Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr Howard —Why don't you debate your opposite number? You will not debate your opposite number. Mr KEATING —I will not debate the block, I will debate the butcher. The honourable member for Bennelong is so gutless he runs away from a debate with me. When he gets a bit of guts back he should take me on and I will make a mess of him. Mr Tuckey —The Treasurer should withdraw that or I will give him two up his. I will give it to him, the smart-Alick. Madam SPEAKER —Order! If the Treasurer said something offensive which I did not hear will he withdraw? Mr KEATING —I did not. Madam SPEAKER —I point out to the Leader of the Opposition that on several occasions he has refused to heed the Chair. I ask him for more co-operation in future. 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 Adermann,Mr Andrew,Mr Beale,Mr Blunt,Mr Braithwaite,Mr John Brown,Mr Carlton,Mr Cobb,Mr Coleman,Mr Conquest,Mr Dobie,Mr Drummond,Mr Dubois,Dr Harry Edwards,Ms Fatin,Mr Fitzgibbon,Mr Hawker,Mr Hollis,Mr Jenkins,Mr Kent,Mr Lloyd,Mr Mildren,Mr Mountford,Mr Nehl,Mr O'Neil,Mr Reith,Mr Ian Robinson,Mr Rocher,Mr Ruddock,Mr Slipper,Dr Watson,Mr White,Mr Wright and Mr Young. 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 Andrew,Dr Charlesworth,Mr Cobb,Mr Dubois and Mr Rocher. 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 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.'' by Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Hawker,Mr O'Neil and Mr Reith. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian Flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and the future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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 Andrew,Mr Hawker and Mr Kent. To the Honourable the 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 per cent in the Family Allowance benefit to return it to 11.5 per cent of the Average Award Wage (making it similar in value to the 11.5 per cent 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 and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the 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 provisions in the taxation system through the introduction of family income splitting. by Mr Jenkins. 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 Mountford. To the Speaker, Honourable Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia, respectfully showeth: We totally reject any moves to cut funding to Australia wide English as a Second Language Programmes in Schools. We request that the Australian Government restore funding to the 1985 levels in the 1986/87 budget. by Mr John Brown,Ms McHugh and Mr Ruddock. To the Speaker and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia, respectfully showeth: By cutting ESL funding and eliminating funding for community languages and multicultural education you have attacked tens of thousands of Australian children. You have condemned these children with limited English to gross educational inequality and very dim prospects for their future. On behalf of these children we call on you to remove this new discrimination which your budget has guaranteed by immediately restoring ESL and Multicultural education funding. by Mr Coleman. 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 Kent,Mr Milton and Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That we the undersigned are totally opposed to the closure of the Wollongong area office of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. 2. That the impact of the closure of the office in Wollongong will be particularly felt by the non-English speaking migrants and community at large from Shoalhaven to Hellensburgh and as far as Wingecarribee and Wollondilly. Your petitioners therefore urge the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to ensure that the area office of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in Wollongong kept operational and fully staffed. by Mr Cadman and Mr Hollis. To the Honourable the Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: That the humble petitioners have grave concern about recent change in the Extradition (Foreign States) Act of 1966 which deny basic rights which have been a cornerstone of the English and Australian law for over seven hundred years. We are speaking of the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and the right of an individual to defend himself against his accusers. This concern has come to light during recent extradition proceedings against Mssrs Hempel and Etheredge in Western Australia. We are concerned that because judicial protection of these basic rights has been excluded from the Act, refugees, migrants, Australian overseas travellers, and visitors are at risk when they have been to (or come from) countries where the norms and practices of human rights and civil liberties are below traditionally accepted Australian standards. We the undersigned petitioners, therefore urge the government to re-examine the Extradition (Foreign States) Act (as amended in 1985), and amend the current Act so that the rights of the accused are once again judicially protected in Australia. In addition, we urge the government to refrain from entering into any further extradition treaties or proceedings under the current Act until the process of re-examination and amendment of the Act has occurred. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Campbell and Mr Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That Labor's capital gains tax, fringe benefits tax, tax on lump sum superannuation and assets test are an unwarranted burden on the people of Australia, have contributed to the national economic crisis and the anomalies in the legislation are causing confusion and anger amongst all sections of the Australian community. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of Labor's Assets Test, Labor's Capital Gains Tax, Labor's Fringe Benefit tax and Labor's tax on lump sum superannuation. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Dobie and Dr Watson. To the Honourable the Speaker and the 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 ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards and Ms McHugh. 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 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 is duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker and Mr Reith. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth 1. That the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Bill 1986 is having a detrimental effect on the car industry generally in South Australia, and more particularly, on employment in that industry. 2. The Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Bill 1986 contains many anomalies, inconsistencies and mistakes in drafting and its administrative implementation is an unwarranted burden on Australian businesses and the Australian taxpayer. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this House repeal as a matter of utmost urgency this regressive legislation which imposes a disincentive to economic and employment growth, thereby jeopardising the well-being and living standards of all Australians, And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Andrew. To the Honourable Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in 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. 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 Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Government's Fringe Benefits Tax is a vicious, punitive tax that unjustly affects employers, will have a major impact on small business and farm profitability, and will result in increased unemployment. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to: Repeal the legislation establishing the Fringe Benefits Tax. And your petitioners, as is duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. 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: 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 Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr 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: 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: 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 geographical location on this planet Earth.. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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 business; 4. The Bill is absurd in its application to Government employees, who now constitute 32% of the work force. 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 certain citizens of Australia 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 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal system of Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal education systems, the independence of the churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children, the unborn, the handicapped, the aged and the infirm, employer and employee relationships and Australian society generally. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal the Bills of Rights legislation forthwith. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of certain citizens of Australia 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 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 petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: The lack of a Medicare office in Lalor/Thomastown is seriously inconveniencing the residents of the Shire of Whittlesea. Your petitioners therefore request that a Medicare office be established in Lalor/Thomastown as soon as possible. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Jenkins. 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. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Jenkins. 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 wish that all medicines prescribed by a registered Medical Practitioner be made available free of charge by the Government to all pensioners for the following reasons: 1. The enormous cost of some drugs, including pain relieving ones, not at present on the ``free list''. 2. That certain drugs essential for permanently disabled, such as epileptics are at present being charged for and therefore present a great financial burden to the pensioner. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will consider our wishes. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia of Albanian back-ground respectfully showeth: We most strongly oppose the use of the ``Special Broadcasting Service'' and the taxpayers funds for nationalist political purposes. We are deeply concerned that the existing Albanian program on Radio 3 EA Melbourne is not meeting the needs of the community. It is being used against its interests, as well as the interests of the broader Australian society. We respectfully believe that such use of public facilities undermines Australian principles of multi-culturalism and has a damaging effect on community relations. Your petitioners therefore, strongly urge the Government to take immediate action to ensure that the present announcers of the Albanian program are removed and replaced with community representatives. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows- That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. 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 assembled, the petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth opposition to cuts in English as a Second Language (ESL) teaching, the scrapping of the Multicultural Education Program, the amalgamation of the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), and the abolition of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs (AIMA), as announced in the Federal Budget of August 19, 1986. Your petitioners request that the Government will review and reverse its decisions on these matters. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Langmore. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the fact that the lack of a Medicare Office in Wyong is seriously inconveniencing the residents of Wyong Shire. Your petitioners therefore request that a Medicare Office is established in Wyong as soon as possible. by Mr Lee. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that the tropical rainforests of North Queensland, between Townsville and Cooktown, are of outstanding universal value and form part of our `natural heritage' as defined by the World Heritage Convention; that these rainforests contain the richest concentration of `primitive' flowering plant families in the world; that these rainforests contain over 1400 species of plants, of which 450 are found nowhere else in the world; that the area has the richest assemblage of fauna in Australia; that these rainforests and fringing tall open forests provide the only habitat for numerous rare and highly restricted species of plants and animals; and that the High Court of Australia found that Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention for the Protection of the world Cultural and Natural Heritage imposed clear obligations on the Commonwealth Government to protect and conserve Australia's natural and cultural heritage. Your petitioners humbly pray that: the Parliament of Australia will, in order to honour it obligations under the World Heritage Convention, protect and conserve the whole of the tropical rainforests in North Queensland, being a part of Australia's natural heritage by nominating the area for inclusion in the World Heritage List. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Ms McHugh. To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned, respectfully showeth that we, the people of Victoria would like to remind you of your moral duty in regard to your decision to sell Uranium to France, against ALP policy. The French are still nuclear testing in the South Pacific, despite world wide protests. We therefore call on you to reverse the decision to sell Uranium to France. by Mr Milton. 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 showeth: 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 showeth: 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. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia 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 Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Cowper 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 Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Page electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's productivity-superannuation accord with the ACTU and its support of the superannuation claims of the trade union movement will create an imbalance in industrial power and distort the future development of the Australian economy. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject the superannuation claim of the trade union movement and allow superannuation to develop without trade union domination. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Robinson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: (a) The film Hail Mary (i.e. Je Vous Salue Marie) has been registered by the Film Censorship Board for public exhibition with a Restricted Classification; and is due to be screened in the forthcoming Sydney Film Festival; (b) The film is a blasphemous and pornographic attack on Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary, Saint Joseph and the Archangel Gabriel, as such it is extremely offensive to the undersigned; (c) The film therefore breaches regulation 13 (1) of the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations. Your petitioners therefore request that the House of Representatives call upon the Attorney-General, as the Minister responsible, to prevent the exhibition of the film in Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That the Capital Gains tax penalises small business, discourages long-term investment, hinders capital formation and wealth creation, has contributed to Australia's economic crisis and contains many anomalies. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately repeal the Income Tax Assessment Amendment (Capital Gains) Act 1986. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Reith. 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 the undersigned are totally opposed to the Government's policy to tax pony club income. Your petitioners urge the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to allow tax exempt status for pony clubs. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Reith. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's proposal to bring about a reduction in the amount payable under the present Family Allowance Scheme, that the House of Representatives assembled oppose such a move, on the evidence of its impact upon the family unit. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek to restore payments to the former level. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the 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 Parliament of Australia, its States and Territories, to take all measures within their powers to reduce the burden of imposed costs and regulation, allowing Australian horticultural growers to develop production potential so the nation, as a whole, can share the benefits of the resulting growth and prosperity. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: (1) That we the undersigned are totally opposed to the introduction by the Hawke Labor Government of a $2.00 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 $2.00 burden with the purchase of each Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme drug; Your petitioners therefore urge the House of Representatives and the Hawke Labor 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 is duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Tasmania respectfully showeth: 1. We are concerned by media statements that the Government intends to restructure the family allowance payment in a form that will reduce its assistance to families. 2. Remind the Government that the family allowance payment is not a Social Security payment as such but a replacement payment for a tax rebate once enjoyed by families for their responsibilities. 3. Whereas the tax rebate would be indexed to the CPI the present family allowance has lost real monetary value since 1976. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: (i) The family allowance payment be indexed to the CPI. (ii) That there be no adverse adjustments to family allowance payments in the 1986-87 Budget. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burr. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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 Gain 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 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. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Fisher respectfully showeth that: Whereas the present Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has purported to present the Title Deeds to Ayers Rock in Central Australia, in reality the joint property of the people of the Commonwealth to an Aboriginal Land Council on 26 October 1985, Whereas opinion polls and statements of representative groups, Members of Parliament and respected individuals show clearly that the Commonwealth Government had no mandate from the citizens of the Commonwealth to act in such a disgraceful manner, Whereas the present Government claims to be totally opposed to apartheid (separate development) in South Africa but purported to hand over Ayers Rock to an Aboriginal Council in support of a policy of apartheid (separate development) which has been shown to be detrimental to the Aboriginal people of Australia, Whereas it is pursuing this policy making it a crime for most white and many Aboriginals to enter, without permit, large areas of the Commonwealth designated apartheid (i.e., set aside for separate development), contrary to our democratic traditions and experience of freedom of movement for citizens of all racial origins within Australia, Whereas Australian citizens have no present means available to them to prevent this violation of their natural rights to unfettered common ownership of, and access to, a treasured natural asset. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Seek means available for the protection of the people's interests to reverse this outrage and preserve the democratic traditions of Australia, And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: 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 citizen 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 the 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 the 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. The humble petition of certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Watson. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The failure of the Government's tax changes to provide more incentive for Australian families and businesses. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.05) —Yesterday, to the considerable surprise and delight of the Opposition, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), in answer to a question, said that the Government intended to make tax not only an important issue in the election campaign but also the important issue. On behalf of the Opposition, I say that we are delighted that the Prime Minister wants to make taxation such an important issue in the next election campaign, because the Prime Minister's record on taxation is deplorable. We will welcome 12, 15 or 18 months of campaigning on the issue of taxation. I thought that my good fortune had finished when the Prime Minister made that declaration, but I was mistaken, because he immediately took off for Sydney and, once again bypassing Parliament and choosing another forum to make important announcements, addressed the Business Council of Australia. On the first page of his speech he made a very interesting declaration about the Budget. It has not received any coverage this morning, but it is the most important element of the speech as far as this taxation debate is concerned. He said: Accordingly the Budget is designed to slow the growth of public and private sector consumption and- this is significant- raise public sector saving. What he is saying is that it is a deliberate aim of the Budget and the deliberate budgetary policy of this Government to increase taxation. That is what the Government set out to do. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) can scoff as much as they like, but the facts speak for themselves. This Treasurer is not only the Treasurer who, to his eternal shame, squandered our AAA rating and who presided over the downgrading of this nation's international credit rating. He is not only the biggest-spending Treasurer in Australian peacetime history, and he not only has double standards when it comes to manipulation of entitlement, but he is also the Treasurer who has presided over the largest levels of taxation in this country's history. He can fulminate, snort, interject and guffaw as much as he likes, but the facts are contained in documents published with his authority, under his name, when the last Budget was brought down. They record in unmistakable terms that he is the biggest-taxing Treasurer this country has ever seen. Yet his Prime Minister would have his Party fight the next election campaign on the issue of taxation. If the Prime Minister wants to do that, may I suggest that he take a bit of instruction on the fundamentals before the campaign starts. Yesterday and today he was asked three questions on taxation by the Opposition. All of them should have been capable of a straight answer from the Prime Minister. Not one of them was answered by the Prime Minister, for the very simple reason that he does not know anything about what has happened to taxation under his own administration. My colleague the honourable member for Riverina-Darling (Mr Hicks)-one of the great marginal seat heroes in this Parliament-asked him a very simple question: `What happened to your promise to ease the administration of the fringe benefits tax when you went to Canowindra'? The Prime Minister had plenty of television cameras there, plenty of public relations stunts and plenty of grandstanding, and he said to the farmers, `My fellow Australians, I will go back and I will do something about it.' He has done nothing about it, and he did not even have the honesty and the common decency to give a straight answer to the honourable member for Riverina-Darling who, with many other members of this House, knows how difficult it is in the rural areas of Australia. Just as bad an example is that yesterday I asked the Prime Minister whether it was a fact that an average taxpayer, somebody on average weekly earnings, even after the taxation reforms of the Government are fully implemented next year-do not let anybody put his money on those tax changes going through because there is a good chance that they will not-will be paying a higher average rate of tax than was a person on average weekly earnings when the Government came to power in March 1983. No wonder the Prime Minister rattled on about tax avoidance and made false allegations about breaking the law. He was asked by me today whether it was a fact that a taxpayer supporting a wife and two children would, likewise pay tax at an average rate of 20.5 per cent after the great Keating reforms when in March 1983 he was paying tax at only 17 1/2 per cent. Once again, he rattled on about something that had absolutely nothing to do with it. For a political leader who wants to fight the next election campaign on tax, the Prime Minister has an enormous amount of homework to do. The reality is that the Government has been a disaster on the issue of taxation. It has abandoned any attempt to control the outlays of the Commonwealth. It has abandoned any attempt to bring down the overall levels of taxation. As a percentage of gross domestic product and as measured by average tax rates, the Government is the highest taxing government in Australia's history since the foundation of this country at Federation. We are delighted that the Treasurer and the Prime Minister have chosen to fight the election on the issue of taxation. A Prime Minister who says that he wants to fight it on taxation and then an hour later nails his colours to the mast by deliberately increasing taxation receipts in a Budget must be a heaven sent opportunity to any kind of opposition. Not only the level of tax but also the complexity of taxation under the Government and the unfairness of the fringe benefits tax are at issue. I say again, on behalf of the Opposition, that the Hawke Government's fringe benefits tax will be thrown out, lock stock and barrel, by the coalition in government. I am absolutely delighted to see that my old friend the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch) is in the chamber. Do honourable members know which State electorate is partially enclosed within the electorate of Barton? Do not say it too loudly. It is Rockdale, the seat held by the Premier of New South Wales. I am absolutely delighted to see that the honourable member for Barton is in the chamber. I do not want Australian Labor Party members who are present to feel that we are neglecting their policy. Therefore, I shall take the House through a little exercise. I have before me a copy of the Prime Minister's policy document. Honourable members might remember that, before the last election, the Prime Minister did not have a tax policy. Yet the Government has the temerity to ask me, 18 months before an election, for a detailed taxation policy. What taxation policy did the Government have for the 1984 election? It was a policy of: `Trust me. Don't bother me with any of your questions. If you really get in my way I'll feed you with a whole lot of nonsense, as did the French kings of old'. Let us run a test over the nine principles in the policy document. Let us see whether the Government scores a pass, a fail or an average for its attempt. The first principle is an absolute ripper, but they get better as one wears one's way through them. It states: There must be no increase in the overall tax burden, as measured by the share of . . . gross domestic product The Government has failed totally in that respect. The second is: Any tax reform must . . . provide . . . cuts in personal income tax. The third is: Taxation changes must contribute to smashing tax avoidance and evasion. The reality is that the Treasurer has not introduced one significant anti-tax avoidance measure in his time as Treasurer. The real job of smashing the tax avoidance industry in Australia was completed by the former Government. The real work in killing the tax avoidance industry was completed by the former Government. The fourth principle is the best of all: any reform must lead to a simpler system which . . . all Australians can understand Do honourable members remember that? The sixth principle is: any tax reform must not disadvantage recipients of welfare benefits, and should reduce or remove `poverty traps' . . . What happened to the poverty trap proposals in the Budget? They were put off, despite the efforts of the honourable member for Barton. No doubt, the honourable member thumped the table and said that the proposals must go through. However, he failed again and they were put off. The seventh principle is: if any reform package which includes changes in indirect tax is contemplated, it must be acceptable to the various groups in the Australian community Once again, that represents an abysmal failure. The eighth principle is even better: any reform must provide the best possible climate for investment, growth and employment in Australia Honourable members should listen to the ninth principle: any reform package must have widespread community support The Treasurer and the Prime Minister have got nought out of nine on each of their nine principles of taxation. That comes from a Prime Minister and a Treasurer who would have the next election campaign fought on the issues of taxation. All I can say to the Treasurer and his colleague the Prime Minister is that we welcome with open arms fighting the next election on the issue of taxation. The Government's record on tax is that of a high taxing government. It has not only presided over a rise in overall tax levels, it has not only introduced inequitable, unfair and punitive taxes, such as the fringe benefits tax, against the small business community; it has also introduced taxes that are contrary to the need to internationalise the Australian economy. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), the shadow Treasurer, asked the Treasurer at Question Time how he could justify a foreign tax credit system in the light of the desire to internationalise our economy. The Treasurer's limp answer was that all of those countries against which we compete have a foreign tax credit system. What he did not acknowledge was that almost all of those countries are capital exporters rather than capital importers. He did not understand that elementary and fundamental difference. Even worse, the Treasurer's tax regime has brought about a positive discouragement to business investment in Australia. The Treasurer and his colleagues are wringing their hands and shaking their fists at the business community and are saying: `Why won't you invest? We have given you a 35 per cent depreciation. Surely that is enough incentive for Australian business to invest'. What they do not say in the same breath is that they have also given the business community a 49 per cent corporate tax rate. The Treasurer has given the business community higher corporate taxes when competing countries are giving their corporations lower corporate taxes. He has not only introduced a 3 per cent rise and an imputation taxation system, which will result in many companies paying a higher primary rate of tax, thereby reducing their dividends by an equivalent amount, but also he has loaded, lock, stock and barrel, an additional 3c to give an all time peace time corporate tax record in this country of 49c in the dollar. The real test of whether business will invest in Australia is not the profit share that the Treasurer and the Prime Minister keep prattling on about. That is not the real test of whether people will invest. The real test of whether people will invest in this country is the after-tax return on their investment. The after-tax rate of return on investment in Australia is at a deplorably low level. It is now at a much lower level than the level that existed for most of the time that the coalition Government was in office. It is absurd and irrelevant for the Treasurer and the Prime Minister to keep talking-as they did to the Business Council yesterday-about the profit share. That is an economic irrelevance. The real test is what return one gets for one's investment. While we have record high interest rates, record corporate tax rates, a rate of inflation 16 times that of our best customer and an unemployment level approaching 9 per cent, we have a zero investment climate. That is why we will never get decent investment in Australia. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.20) —The one thing about the Liberals is that they have no shame. One would swear that anybody who in 1982-83 sent the country into its first negative growth period in 30 years, who put 400,000 families into the poverty of unemployment, who smashed companies and caused massive bankruptcies, who left Australia with the biggest Budget imbalance and current account imbalance in its history, would not dare raise his head about incentives and taxation. The only tax incentive to Australia he provided in his years of office was the incentive to the tax avoidance industry. Yet the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) is not shamefaced. The thing about the Liberals is that they cannot be shamed. Here he is, back talking about his record in taxation. He should hang his head in shame at the revelations of the Costigan report, the McCabe-Lafranchi report, the massive tax evasion he permitted, the telephone book of letters from the Commissioner of Taxation, almost every week, imploring him to take action about it, imploring him to take action about the massive tax rip-offs which he let occur. Guess who carried the burden of the 60 per cent tax rate he left them and the other massive tax rates? It was the ordinary members of the public, while other people escaped through massive and rampant tax avoidance. Fancy him daring to get up and speak about incentives when we had the massive destruction of the economy, the massive disincentive of massive unemployment, an 11 per cent inflation rate, unemployment at nearly 11 per cent, and unfair and prohibitive double taxation of dividends. This is the record of the former Government, this is the record of the former Treasurer. One of the jokes of the current Opposition is that we have to watch the words used by the Leader of the Opposition in respect of the fringe benefits tax. He and his shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), must have rehearsed this in the office. They always say: `The fringe benefits tax of the Hawke Government will be thrown out lock, stock and barrel'. It is always the Hawke fringe benefits tax or the Hawke Government. They do not say that they will not tax fringe benefits. They say-it is a sleight of hand-that they will throw out the Hawke Government's fringe benefits tax. But in 1980 the former Treasurer had this to say: Fairness demands that employees who are paid solely in cash-and most Australians are-should not be asked to pay more tax and thus effectively subsidise those whose income is obtained partly in cash and partly in the form of valuable benefits of other kinds. What a quantum shift we have seen from those sentiments. That was said when he was trying to put his own fringe benefits tax on the Queensland miners. He said that fairness demanded that people paid solely in cash should not carry all the burden and that these other valuable forms of benefit were taxed. Then when asked on the Carleton-Walsh Report on 30 July this year about the fringe benefits tax he said: I said when I made the announcement about the fringe benefits tax that what we were going to do was get rid of Mr Hawke's fringe benefits tax- it is always the same words-- and that abuses in the area, and there were some, are some, would be some in the future, that they would be dealt with in another fashion. In other words, the dishonesty of his claim is that he will not have a bar of the Hawke Government's fringe benefits tax but he will have one of his own, and he will have one where he taxes it in another fashion. The duplicity of it is that on the one hand he was talking in 1980 about the unfairness of people escaping the tax net by non-cash fringe benefits, but now he is saying: `Oh, isn't it shocking. There is the Hawke Government's fringe benefits tax. We will throw that out'. But he goes on to say: `We will have one of our own and deal with it in another fashion'. Does he think we are all silly, that we do not understand the words he is using, that we do not understand what the sleight of hand is? It is the same for his deputy, the shadow Treasurer. He said much the same thing: `We will throw it out entirely and do it in another way'. He said: `We would remove the FBT of Mr Keating's entirely, with its 139 pages. We would be back to the old law, which in fact imposed a tax on employees'. How is it going to tax the employees? Apparently the Opposition thinks that this is a vile tax, but it is all right to tax the employees. It is going to have its own fringe benefits tax. The blatant dishonesty of that frankly is sickening. When one looks at the Hawke Government's record on this, it can be seen that we have tried to make the tax system clean, decent and fair for most Australians. I notice that in another piece of rank dishonesty the Leader of the Opposition said that he does not believe that tax cuts will be given, when he knows the Bills are coming into this Parliament, to be passed during this session, for a tax cut in December and on 1 July 1987. That will take the Howard 60 per cent rate down to 49 per cent, the 48 per cent rate and 46 per cent rate down to 40 per cent, and the other rates below that. They represent the greatest tax changes in the history of the Income Tax Assessment Act since 1936, the largest set of remedial and equitable changes in the tax system on record. The Leader of the Opposition talks about unfairness to business. `Ignore the profitability', he said. Let me make this clear about the fringe benefits tax and profitability: In the last three years total incorporated and unincorporated business after tax profits were $14 billion-$10.8 billion from incorporated business, up 60 per cent in the Government's three years in office, and $8.3 billion from unincorporated enterprises, a total after tax profit of $14 billion, of which the whole tax package is roughly $700m; $700m out of $14 billion. We hear about how other countries around the world are reducing corporate tax rates. Yet the whole United States tax reform proposal is based on a dramatic increase in corporate taxation. The whole United States proposal which the Opposition is touting is based on a massive increase in corporation taxation. Mr Hodgman —I have just torn up the Act into pieces, the same as you. You're a tax bandit. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member for Denison will cease interjecting. He has been interjecting throughout this debate. Mr Hodgman —You're a tax bandit. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Denison. Mr KEATING —When one looks through the tax record of this Government, we find that in December 1984 we provided tax cuts of $7.60 a week to the typical taxpayer. There are to be tax cuts in December 1986 and July 1987 worth $1.4 billion and $4.5 billion respectively. We have an imputation system removing the previous coalition Government's onerous policy of the double taxation of dividends. We have abolished the Division 7 profits retention tax on small business. They are tax reforms to ensure that everybody pays their fair share of tax as needs be. On this question of tax rates and corporate tax rates, Australia will be only the second country in the world, after West Germany, to have a full imputation system removing the double taxation of dividends. West Germany provides it with a corporate rate of 56 per cent. Australia will provide it with a corporate rate of 49 per cent. It is a corporate tax revolution where for the first time we will be taxing equity once and debt once, instead of, as under the Howard system, taxing equity twice and debt once. Is it any wonder we saw inadequate equity in capital formation in this country and a loss of dynamism in the economy when we were taxing equity twice and debt once. This Government is removing the double taxation of dividends and is doing it at a corporate rate of 49 per cent, seven percentage points less than the only other country which does it, West Germany, which enjoys one of the most robust private economies in the world. The Opposition should not lecture us about corporate tax changes. What it did about the corporate tax system was nothing. It had 30 years of pleas by business to remove the double tax on dividends and it did nothing about it. It had small business trying to remove the Division 7 retention burden. It left it there for years and years. We have abolished it. Now the closely privately held company which wishes to distribute its earnings by way of dividends to its shareholders can do so without paying any personal tax on the dividends. In other words, they will be taxed once at the company level and that is it. To put it another way, if they pay the personal tax they will get a rebate for the company tax which is paid. It is a corporate tax revolution. I am quite happy to debate with the Leader of the Opposition anywhere he likes the whole question of changes to the corporate tax system. Of course, he went on to talk about another major distortion, saying that the Government had done nothing about tax avoidance. Apart from the massive changes of the tax reform exercise, let me read into the record the things the Government has done. The Government's bottom of the harbour recoupment legislation, worth $270m, was rejected four times by the coalition parties in the Senate, attempting as they were, and as they still do, to protect tax avoiders. We implemented the law on the prescribed payments system to deal with the black economy in the building and transport industries. We introduced legislation to deal with abuse of superannuation-the cherry-picker schemes; the taxation of lump sums to deal with short term employees who were evading tax by taking remuneration in the form of lump sums; the reduction of the tax threshold for unmarried minors; the removal of the tax exemption for friendly societies; the removal of the tax advantages for short term life insurance policies; the removal of the basic flaws in the capital gains provision of section 26 (a), which is now section 25a; the abolition of unfair tax concessions in automatic in-out averaging provisions; the major overhaul of tax penalty provisions; and a major increase in compliance staff. We closed off the tax loopholes contained in the interest withholding tax provisions; terminated tax advantages for deferred interest securities; introduced retrospective legislation to recoup moneys lost through new generation trust strips; removed tax advantages for non-monetary benefits received by business taxpayers; and removed the tax advantages associated with leasing by non-residents. We also re-presented the bottom of the harbour legislation. That is the proud record of this Government in regard to tax avoidance. On top of that, there is our record in regard to tax reform. Fancy the Leader of the Opposition talking about incentives for families! He has been arguing for three years for cuts in their real wages. He has been arguing for three years for a wage freeze. He would deny them any justice in the labour market. He would put the whole burden of economic adjustment on them. Yet he talks about incentives while crushing them by pushing this load on them. The history of the coalition is massive expenditure. The other great furphy which the Leader of the Opposition keeps pushing is in regard to the Government's record on receipts as a percentage of gross domestic product. He knows full well that, when he runs private health payments through the tax system, he is including them in the tax system. The fact is that, with the extraction of payments for Medicare, which are only a substitute for private health payments, the biggest taxing Treasurer in Australian history is the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong. In his last three years in office he increased tax receipts to 24.5 per cent of GDP. In his last three Budgets he increased outlays by 3 per cent to 29 per cent of GDP. In 1982 he gave a tax cut which he knew he could not afford, which blew the Budget deficit out to $9.6 billion. He did that because he thought he would go to an election and he might sneak through if he introduced a phoney, fraudulent tax cut which he could not pay for. It was just like the phoney, fraudulent tax cuts of 1977 which he took away from taxpayers after they had been promised a fistful of dollars in the election campaign. In 1977 people were told: `Ring up and find out how much your tax cut is'. He snatched those cuts away in May 1978, five months later. That is the Howard tax record. That is the record of tax incentives for a nation which was smashed to pieces by negative growth, massive unemployment, massive inflation, smashed companies and massive bankruptcies. He talked about incentives and the tax system. He ought to hang his head in shame. I wind up my remarks at the point at which I started: It is only shameless Liberals with hides like elephants who could propose a matter of public importance of this variety. They have an appalling record of neglect and lack of concern for taxpayers, families, and any other category of Australians, who were smashed to pieces by their cowardice and policy ineptitude between 1975 and 1982. I reject their matter of public importance out of hand. It is just another sleight of hand by a dingy party, to try to get some cheap credibility by making false and fallacious claims which they could not possibly defend. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(3.34) —Although the Treasurer (Mr Keating) seeks pathetically to deny it, spending by the Commonwealth and accompanying taxation under this Government have done more to crush incentives for family and businesses than any other single act of this Government. Forced as they are to concentrate on vast and complex changes to tax laws, distracted as they are by unprecedented costs incurred by way of administration expenses and other overheads, overwhelmed as they are by the need to get professional and other advice on how to cope with the additional work load brought about by an avalanche of new laws and regulations, individual taxpayers, families and business managers in this country could be forgiven for asking what they could possibly have done to deserve the miserable treatment they are getting under the Hawke Government. I think they well might ask: `What did we do that was so wrong?' My colleagues and I ask: Why is there all of this preoccupation over the life of this Government with new and more taxes? Every morning people awake to the realisation that they are being mugged by the taxes of a rhetorically sympathetic Government. If the Government spent a fraction of the time it devotes to squeezing more tax out of the incomes of people striving to maintain a decent standard of living on curbing its own profligacy, we would all be much better served. This indecent concentration by this increasingly lame duck Government on taxing more rather than axing expenditure simply must stop. There is no sign of it. Commonwealth spending is rampant and the prospects are very dim under this mob. It is the product of the Government's deliberate, cold-blooded series of decisions which see Australia as a nation living beyond its means. Those decisions have seen Commonwealth outlays increased over its first four years in government by just under a massive $26 billion. That is an increase in expenditure of a staggering 53 per cent in just four years. In order to cope, the Government has embarked on a tax regime that seems to know no bounds. It has adopted and threatens new and more taxes, all of which are not part of a coherent tax package, as some would have it, but stem from a series of unrelated money-grabbing measures. The tax element of the much vaunted trilogy of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was, of course, an inevitable casualty at the altar of sincerity. Does anyone remember the trilogy? It has been conveniently forgotten by the Government. We do not hear much from the Government about that little deception any more; and who can blame it? The taxation component of the trilogy of promises has been broken in its first two years. It was $400m over the odds in the last financial year, and it promises to be at least-and I emphasise, at least-$1.4 billion over the odds this year. So, the so-called trilogy commitment-the key to this Government's fiscal policy-has been unceremoniously aborted. Tax revenue in real terms has increased under this Government at an annual rate of 4.9 per cent over the full four years, compared with 3.3 per cent during the seven years of the Fraser Government. Let the Treasurer bite on that fact. Tax receipts as a percentage of gross domestic product were increased to 25 per cent in 1984-85 under this Hawke Government-a record high. They have increased even further since then, of course, in the subsequent two Budgets, rising to 25.2 per cent in 1985-86 and 25.5 per cent in 1986-87. In case those opposite want to delve again into the irrelevancies of the past, let me say that the four-year average under the Hawke Government has been 24.8 per cent compared with an average of 23.4 per cent during the Fraser-Howard years. That is a big difference. If one expresses it as a percentage increase, one will understand what I am saying. Government expenditure, even if measured in real terms, has increased by 3.9 per cent a year under this Prime Minister and this Treasurer. That is almost double the seven-year average of 2.1 per cent under the previous coalition Government. Government expenditure as a percentage of GDP is budgeted to be 29.4 per cent in this financial year-the fourth highest figure in post-war history. The other three figures came about during the first three years of the Hawke Government. It is clear that this Government has set its priorities and it is determined to tax to the hilt to feed its addiction to spending more and more. The priorities of its back bench are not nearly so clear. We see the Victorian Left worrying about the value of the full bob and at the same time it is talking a lot about a halfpenny. That is about the measure of the Left's contribution to economic debate. Members of the Left do not even come into this place; they are not allowed in here. It is good to see the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch). I do not blame the Government for not allowing members of the Left here. They are rarely let loose in this Parliament to debate anything these days. While some on the back bench have legitimate, moral positions the Government is less pretentious. Remember how the Treasurer and the Prime Minister liked to blame traders in the currency market for the demise of the dollar every now and then. Remember how, in sarcastic terms, traders have been belittled from time to time for simply pursuing business consequential to the refloat of our currency, a decision with which we agreed. There has not been any complaint from the same Prime Minister or the same Treasurer about the Reserve Bank of Australia being in the same market boots and all. We have not heard as much as an apologetic whimper from anyone in the Government about the Reserve Bank bailing it out with a cool $2.6 billion dividend, a dividend available as a direct result of the Bank's punting in the foreign exchange market. It is all right for the Government but it is not all right for businessmen. The double standards mount up and up. Without that dividend of $2.6 billion this year's deficit would be $6.2 billion or taxes would have to be increased by $4 billion instead of the $1.4 billion we now have to swallow. Either way Australia would have been in hock further, and that should not be forgotten. Some of the budgeted tax hikes deserve a brief mention. The medicare levy has increased from 1 per cent to 1 1/4 per cent which will put another $325m in government coffers over a full year. Motor spirit and diesel fuel have increased by 3c a litre. The Government will make another $715m out of that at the expense of Australian taxpayers and consumers. Alcoholic wine and cider is good for another touch of 10 per cent and it seems that the Government will get another $60m from that. The Government then gets into the kids who drink flavoured milk and fruit juices. The Government says: `Non-alcoholic beverages have been doing all right. Packaged flavoured milk and all previously tax exempt fruit juice products and non-alcoholic wine and cider should bear an additional tax load of 10 per cent'. The only reason those products have to bear that load is that the tax will yield another $75m to this Government's pockets. Mr Donald Cameron —Stealing the kids' milk. Mr ROCHER —It is stealing the kids' milk. It was just yesterday the Prime Minister said that it is critical to lift investment in this productive country. Let me tell honourable members and anyone who cares to listen that it is difficult-bordering on impossible-to concentrate on lifting productivity and lifting investment when one has just been whacked about the head by a veritable raft of new tax measures. It is hard to concentrate when one has to work out what one is supposed to do with the fringe benefits tax and when one has to devote the resources necessary just to pay one's taxes-a tax on employment. It is very difficult to concentrate on what one should be doing and getting this country going with investment and productivity. On top of that we have the capital gains tax. What this Government does not seem to understand about that tax is that it has a very strong psychological effect on the business community generally. It will hinder the growth of new investment in Australia which is essential for the development of our economy and consequent growth in employment. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PUNCH(Barton)(3.44) —I commence by thanking the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) for his courteous and well-timed mention of me twice in his speech. I am pleased that I am so actively on his mind. The sad feature about the rise of the honourable member for Bennelong to Leader of the Opposition is not the Facial cosmetic changes with the clipped eyebrows but that he has become a politician with cosmetic policy stances and clipped credibility. This afternoon we have heard in this tax debate more furphies than a crooked statistician in senility could possibly come up with. Whoever is digging up the Leader of the Opposition's figures ought to re-examine his mathematics. Let us look at a few of the facts. This week the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development released a report on taxation in member countries. An examination of that OECD document reveals that of the 23 OECD countries out of the listed 24 Australia's tax burden, as a percentage of gross domestic product in 1984, was the sixth lowest, not among the highest. The OECD report states: As since 1971 the five countries with the highest total tax are Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Norway and the Netherlands. France, Austria, Luxembourg, Italy, Ireland and the United Kingdom constitute the other high tax ratios. The ratio is around average in Germany and Finland and rather below average in Greece, Canada, Switzerland, Portugal, Australia and New Zealand. That is how we stand on an international comparison. Let us see how we stand in historical terms. The average tax rate for a person on average weekly earnings is a good guide, perhaps the best guide. Prior to the income tax cuts in November 1982 a person on average weekly earnings faced an average tax rate of 23.1 per cent; that is, under the treasurership of the Leader of the Opposition the average tax rate was 23.1 per cent. The tax cut of 1982 reduced this figure to 20.9 per cent under the Leader of the Opposition's then treasurership. Following the income tax cuts in November 1984 by this Government the average tax rate faced by a person on average weekly earnings fell to 19.9 per cent. In December of this year, with further tax reductions, the figure will further fall to 19.7 per cent and that is before the further income tax cut in July next year. So if we want to talk about the average tax and the average person, the Leader of the Opposition should get hold of these figures and then he would see why we on this side of the House are only too happy to participate in a full scale debate on taxation in the next election campaign. Another worrying matter which those opposite have to contemplate is that the public at last is starting to see what the alternative agenda would be. Andrew Hay, in his weekly instructions to the Leader of the Opposition through the New Right, has given further tax advice today, but what would its alternative budget be? Mr Brian Buckley's alternative budget would tax the family allowance at the chief breadwinner's marginal tax rate and would cut it out completely for the first child. It would tax veterans' disability allowances. We have seen other fellow travellers of the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), advocating a consumption tax without compensatory measures. The public across Australia has to ask itself what is the alternative agenda of those opposite because it looks pretty horrifying to me. Much has been made of the increase in tax receipts that has occurred under this Government. Of course there has been an increase in tax receipts under this Government. Some 630,000 people now have jobs who did not have them earlier. A great many of them would be paying taxation instead of taking from the tax system through dole payments as they were under the administration of the Leader of the Opposition. Of course many thousands of people are now paying tax who were not paying tax earlier. Most of those equate quite readily in their political passions with those opposite. That is the equation of those opposite and their mutterings about the various tax measures which this Government has introduced to restore equity and fairness to the system that previously saw those most able to pay paying little or nothing. That situation has changed. If we look at the Budget Papers we can see, when we compare 1980-81 with 1983-84, that after one year of the Hawke Labor Government 573,171 more individuals were paying tax. There were also 7,114 additional companies paying tax. Of course, much of that is due to the employment policies of this Government-there are more people in jobs paying taxes-and a damn lot of it has to do with the crackdown on tax avoidance that those opposite refused to do when in government. The Leader of the Opposition will be haunted by those figures for the rest of his days in this place. He will also be haunted for the rest of his days in this place by the fact that remaining on the record, on the public agenda, is $5.9 billion of tax promises which he and the shadow Treasurer know must be funded by tax increases that they refuse to name, by spending cuts that they refuse to detail or by a massive blow-out in the Budget deficit of the proportion of the $9.6 billion deficit that the Leader of the Opposition, when Treasurer, left us with. We can talk about incentive: Where was the incentive, when the Leader of the Opposition was the Treasurer, of the tax cuts which were promised in 1977 and taken away straight after the election in 1978; the incentive when unemployment was doubled from 5 per cent to 10 per cent; the incentive when inflation hit 12 per cent; and the incentive when we had the unfair and prohibitive double taxation of dividends? The only incentive the Leader of the Opposition brought to the system was the incentive to make the tax avoidance industry the fastest growing industry in our nation-a national shame. By contrast, the most far-reaching tax reform in Australia's history has been undertaken and is now being legislated for by this Government. In December 1984 we gave tax cuts that were worth $7.60 a week to typical taxpayers. We will give tax cuts in December this year and in July 1987. They are not just being promised, as the Leader of the Opposition implied a few moments ago. Better than that, they are now being passed into law. We are cutting the top marginal rate of tax from the former Treasurer's 60c in the dollar to 49c in the dollar. What better incentive can a government give to a nation? We are ending the coalition's onerous policy regarding imputation, the double taxation of dividends. What better incentive can a government give to the business community of this nation? I refer to the abolition of the Division 7 profits retention tax on small business. What better incentive can a government give to the small business sector? We are instituting tax reforms which insure that everybody will pay his fair share of tax in this nation from now on. In all there are tax cuts worth $4.5 billion for the families and businesses of this country. That sum is almost half the deficit which the Leader of the Opposition when Treasurer left to this nation. So in regard to taxation and incentive, this Government has the runs on the board. Honourable members opposite politic and postulate for businesses, individuals and families. We on this side of the House have acted decisively in our 3 1/2 years of government as opposed to the 7 1/2 years of inaction and ineptitude and the corruption of the taxation system over which they presided. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Consideration resumed. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(3.55) —Before the debate was adjourned I read on to the record a letter which was written to me in response to communications I made to the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry. The letter was written by the Secretary to the Commission on instructions from the presiding member. I do not think it necessary to put on record all that I put in the communications that preceded that, save to say that I had sought, amongst other things, to confirm that there were real limitations on what could be provided within the terms of the Act regulating the Commission concerning its actions in winding up the Commission. Effectively what we received is a confirmation of that. The letters have been made public and I do not need to say anything more about them. I repeat that the Secretary's letter to me is the fullest statement of the detail of the winding up of the Commission and that the Government did not attempt to get from the Commission a full and measured statement of the steps taken by it in winding up its work and its position under section 34, that is, the section of the Act which provides a power to refer communications to relevant law enforcement authorities. A number of points of importance emerge from the Secretary's letter written on behalf of the Commission, and I shall go through them quickly. First, the Commission's view of its role under section 34 was that it was not required to conduct an analysis of material in its possession for the purposes of communication to persons and agencies specified in section 34 of the statute, that is, persons and agencies responsible for the enforcement and prosecution of criminal offences under Commonwealth, State and Territory laws. That is an important fact, as we now know precisely what the Commission understood its role to be. It certainly did not understand its role to be that of conducting an analysis of the material in its hands. The importance of that is that a great deal of material has been collected by the Commission and has been dissipated as a consequence of the Commission's imminent winding up. Secondly, while the question of the Commission's role under section 34 was generally addressed by it, it was not done in the same depth as would have been the case, to quote the words of the letter, `had the Commission gone to finality'. The Commission said that a good deal of the material in its hands was inchoate and, in that form, unsuitable for reference pursuant to section 34. Generally, it said, to be suitable for that purpose such material would need to be enhanced by further investigation and/or cross-examination of witnesses. We know that that further investigation is not to take place, because the Commission is to be wound up and the Government has resisted any further investigation of the material. Thirdly, it seems clear that because of the terms of the Commission's statute and the Repeal Bill itself, it will be impossible to know in any detailed sense what happened as far as the National Crime Authority is concerned. All we know is what the Commission has said on that question, which was: However, when it became apparent that the Commission was to be wound up by the Parliament, it consulted the National Crime Authority over materials in its possession that the Authority might require. Those requested by the Authority were provided to it. We know, of course, that the Authority is a body of a limited charter. It can only investigate certain kinds of offences. It cannot investigate other offences. We have not the least idea of what kind of consultation took place between the Commission and the Authority. However, we do know that in the Commission's view much of the material was in an inchoate form; that is, it was not properly ordered. That would have made the task of anyone looking at it from the point of view of law enforcement more difficult. It needed to be ordered. It needed to be further investigated so that any question of criminal activity could be followed up. I repeat, so that there can be no doubt on the subject, that I am most certainly not referring to Mr Justice Murphy. I am, and have at all times been, referring to other parties. This very Government contemplated that there might be evidence of criminal actions by third parties and that was the reason why section 34 was put in the Act to regulate the Commission's work. Fourthly, the material sent to the Parliament will not include all of the material that came into the hands of the Commission. In particular, material provided to the Commission on a confidential basis-from whom or from what organisations we are not allowed to know, and I say that without being critical of the Commission; it is the position and I accept it entirely-has apparently been returned to source. It is impossible to say what kind of reference to this kind of material will be contained in the records of the Commission which are to be sent to Parliament. Fifthly, effectively the body of material gathered into the hands of the Commission from various sources will be dissipated. Some of the material-counsels' personal working notes-has been destroyed. It will cease to exist as a concentrated body of material in the hands of one single investigate body. Anyone who has had anything to do with the conduct of investigations-I believe that I am the only person in this House who has; I spent a good part of two years investigating failed companies-would know that it is important, once the material is gathered together, that one person or one group of people look at it because that person or group of people can get a concentrated knowledge of it and an understanding of it which will be lost when the material is sent back to its various sources. I wish again to make it plain that nothing which is said here or elsewhere is intended as a criticism of the Commission or of those assisting it. Quite the contrary; they must operate within the constraints of the Commission's statutes and are to be commended for undertaking the difficult task that Parliament gave to them. I say that particularly in reference to the three retired judges who took on a most onerous job out of a sense of public service and public spirit. But the necessary consequence of the Government's intentions and the repeal Bill in its present form is that a detailed and exhaustive investigation of the whole of the material that came to the Commission for the purpose of determining whether further information exists which may be evidence of the commission of criminal offences or which may lead to the uncovering of criminal offences or evidence relating to them will never take place. It was and it remains our view that it is in the public interest that such an examination take place. We are not here talking about Mr Justice Murphy. We are not here talking about anything which bears on Mr Justice Murphy's reputation. We are not here talking about allegations concerning Mr Justice Murphy becoming public. What we are talking about is one simple proposition. That material was gathered from many sources. From what the Commission has told us we know that some material was provided to it in confidence and on the basis that it would be returned, and that that material has been returned. We know the files have been returned to their various sources. It is a simple question of public interest. If there was evidence on further investigation of criminality, that criminality should be uncovered. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr Spender —In that event, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will sit down, since I do not think I have anything further to say on the subject. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.05) —I do not wish to delay the Committee, but I welcome-- Mr Spender —Unless my colleague is provocative. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is unusual for me to be provocative. I welcome the fact that the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), leading for the Opposition, said that he in no way intends that there should be any suggestion of pursuit of matters that in any way might affect His Honour Mr Justice Murphy. I am grateful for that because it has taken some time to get that position clear in the debates that have preceded this one. A number of accusations were made, not necessarily by the honourable member for North Sydney but certainly by others. The point I want to make is that this is a parliamentary commission. The honourable member made reference to the fact that the Government had not sought to do this or that with the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry. It never has. It is a parliamentary commission and the Commission does not report to the Government; it reports to the Presiding Officers. I think that point ought to be made very clear. The Commission, in its report to the Presiding Officers, made it clear that it really could not carry on its functions because of the dreadful illness of the judge. It made the point: No evidence has been heard and therefore nothing decided. That is a quote from the report given to the Presiding Officers. In that report the Commission said further: To continue the hearings if the judge was too ill to take place- it is known that he is-- would be contrary to established practice and to natural justice. I want to place that on record. That is known to the Opposition and it was known to it at the time. This further matter was known to the Opposition. The Commission talked about the previous report given, and it went on to say: I should add that senior counsel assisting the Commission is of the view that in the present circumstances little would be gained from pursuing the costly exercise of continuing investigatory and related work. That happens to be a statement which I received on 1 September. The letter is undated, but it was sent to the Presiding Officers by the presiding member. I think it was sent in August. Mr Spender —On the basis that the Commission was winding down. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, but it made the point that senior counsel was of the view that little would be gained. The other point that the honourable gentleman might address his mind to is that if there is any information or evidence it is still available, in that if it was with a person it might have been returned to that person, or if persons have information themselves they can certainly give evidence about it. The point he emphasised, quite fairly, is that a good deal of the material is inchoate and in that form is unsuitable for reference under section 34. So what particular piece of material are we talking about or what statement requires further analysis that cannot be obtained? It is not confined or removed from further analysis elsewhere. In this case the issue basically was to prevent allegations, for which there was no supporting evidence, being actually published. I am sure they will be, and it will be a dreadful thing when they are because the unfortunate judge will not be able to answer them. That will be the position-that it does sleight his character and affect his family. That is the point. Nothing in the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (Repeal) Bill 1986 will prevent steps that persons who have supplied any information or documents wish to take to supply information to law enforcement agencies. The Commission has already passed material to the National Crime Authority. There is no question of anything not being made available which is going to be pursued, not in respect of the judge but in respect of, as the honourable member for North Sydney says, other matters. That can still be pursued. There is no problem there at all. I understand that the Commission consulted the National Crime Authority over the materials in its possession and that those requested by the National Crime Authority were provided to it. We do not need to belabour the point. The honourable gentleman took the course of having discussions or correspondence with the Secretary of the Commission, who has replied to him, but I think it is fair that if senior counsel made the point that there was no purpose really in pursuing the exercise-- Mr Spender —That was in relation to the Commission's inquiry into Mr Justice Murphy, wasn't it? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I do not know that it was. I do not think so. The point is made that senior counsel is of the view that little would be gained by continuing investigatory and related work. I am sure that if there had been some suggestion of a criminal offence pursuant to section 34, senior counsel would have pursued that. He would have referred the matter and would not have just abandoned it. Furthermore, I notice senior counsel destroyed his notes on this matter. I am aware of that because of correspondence that the honourable member for North Sydney has received. There is no suggestion of the Government giving any directions or of being involved in this matter. No one has suggested that senior counsel would have so acted without having given consideration to the obligations under section 34. I can understand those who say that this is an unusual matter. Indeed, it is unique; it has never happened before in the sense that we have had a commission that could not commence its work. If there is any evidence-I emphasise this-it will be made available. In fact, if there is any evidence, it has been made available. Much of the material is inchoate and not of any value. Reference was made in a previous debate to His Honour being some sort of KGB agent. That suggestion came from the honourable member for Bruce (Mr Aldred), who suggested that there was a security risk. I am aware from another source that there were a fair number of lunatics wandering around making all sorts of statements, and that would be one of them. Dr Klugman —The honourable member for Bruce? I would agree with that. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No. I was talking about the statements. The Commission was able to sift the matter and that was its description of the submission. It considered that it came from someone who was not well balanced. Mr Spender —Where did that come from? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It was mentioned in an earlier debate by the honourable member for Bruce. He wanted to know why we were winding up the Commission when there might be some sort of problem. Mr Spender —Where did the Commission's view come from? I have not seen that. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It did not come from the Commission. It came from somebody who was given this bit of material and who took it to the Commission. There are plenty of people who want to continue to produce all sorts of sensational accusations that have no foundation. We must be careful about that. However, if there is any evidence at all, it will be dealt with. We are faced with an issue that is not related at all to His Honour, and the honourable member for North Sydney acknowledges that. I am sure that senior counsel would have pursued any matter that he thought worthwhile. He would not have destroyed his notes simply because he thought that he should destroy them. If there was any material available, it was referred to the National Crime Authority. I think that that ought to be the end of the matter. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay) —On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the sixth report for 1986 of the Committee relating to the refurbishment of Taxation Building, Brisbane, and seek leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr MILLAR —I thank the House. I shall not delay the House unduly. I wish briefly to inform the House that the Public Works Committee has addressed this parliamentary referral on the taxation building and has come to the conclusion that the Brisbane taxation building falls short of contemporary accepted standards for office accommodation. Furthermore, an analysis of comparative costs between a number of options which would rectify the standard of present accommodation indicates the refurbishment option to be the most effective. The disruption to work occurring during the period necessary to complete this project will be minimised by relocating staff whose floors are being refurbished to the adjoining Statistics House. The Committee has requested details of the layout of the floors and the details should be provided to the Committee prior to the commencement of work on the project. The extent of the proposed refurbishment is necessary and appears generally to meet Taxation Office and Commonwealth office accommodation guidelines. It is noted that the limit of cost estimate is $7.21m at March 1986 prices, and consequently the Committee recommends to Parliament the construction of the work in this reference. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay) —On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the seventh report for 1986 of the Committee relating to the construction of working accommodation and warehousing for the 51st Supply Battalion, Guildford, Western Australia, and I seek leave of the House to make a short statement. Leave granted. Mr MILLAR —I thank the House. In addressing this referral, the Committee concluded that there would be advantages in terms of operational efficiency and control if the headquarters elements of the 51st Supply Battalion were to be located with the major warehouse complex and the control and purchase offices. It was evident to the Committee that existing buildings at Midland are old and inadequate and that the site is unsuited for contemporary warehousing activities. Commonwealth, State and local government authorities, in the view of the Committee, should hold urgent discussions aimed at ensuring that the preservation of the railway spur line easement is not compromised in the light of adjacent land use development planning, thereby denying the facility access to requirements in future. The extent of the proposed work can be justified on the ground of the nature of the Midland facility, which needs to be replaced, and the advantages identified in locating headquarters, administration and stores functions in the one complex. It is considered by the Committee that the Guildford site is suitable for the type of development that is proposed and provides sufficient space for expansion. The limit of cost estimate for the project is $8.2m at April 1986 prices. The Committee therefore recommends to the House construction of the work in this reference. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Expenditure, I present the report of the Committee entitled `Patronage, Power and the Muse: Inquiry into Commonwealth Assistance to the Arts', together with copies of the minutes of proceedings, the transcript of evidence and submissions authorised for publication. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr LEO McLEAY —by leave-I take pleasure in presenting this report to the House. The report is the outcome of one of the largest and most complex inquiries undertaken by the Expenditure Committee during the seven years that I have been a member of it. Some sections of the report cover ground that had previously been traversed in a controversial Industries Assistance Commission report which was issued in 1976. I found it interesting that the first of 133 submissions to the present inquiry claimed that the IAC report had been rejected because of `the insensitive way in which it was written.' I hope that my well-known sensitivity shines through in this report, but I suspect that some parts of the arts community will disagree with my conclusions. Like the IAC, the Expenditure Committee believes that subsidy to the arts is intended to benefit the public at large and not only artists. This goes to the heart of a long-standing dispute between two broad philosophies on arts assistance. There are those who believe that a limited range of so-called high arts is good in itself and that these arts should be assisted because of their merit. Others argue that a wide range of cultural activities can benefit different people at different times. That means anything from opera to rock music or from Picasso to Patrick Cook. The Committee adopted the second approach. It did not reject the value of the so-called high arts but it did not accept either that they are the sole repositories of artistic merit. Following this line, the chapter of the report dealing with the performing arts flagships-the Australian Opera, the Australian Ballet and their orchestras-is balanced by a chapter on contemporary music, the most widespread and influential art form in modern Australia. Much of the report is concerned with the Australia Council which is the agency responsible for direct grants to the arts. The Committee acknowledges that the Council has some important achievements to its credit. The growth in the art forms the Council subsidises has been massive over the 15 years of its existence. Nevertheless, the Committee also has some important criticisms of the Council. These could be summarised as resulting from two causes. The Committee believes that the Council has been partly captured by its clients and that it has not adapted enough to changing circumstances. In particular, the Committee believes that the Council has not adapted to the growth in the arts industry and the massive increase in State and local government arts support. A large part of the report considers two sacred cows of Australian art assistance: The arm's length principle and peer review. Under the arm's length principle the Australia Council has been largely free of government control of both its policies and its administration of grants. The Committee accepts that a high degree of independence is desirable in grants administration. However, we do not accept that the Council should establish policy independent of government. The peer review principle has been taken to mean that arts grants should be under the control of, in the Council's words, `artists and their colleagues'. Apart from the difficulty of deciding which artists or colleagues should make the decisions-a difficulty that has led to much contention among artistic factions-this principle ignores the public interest in the direction of public funds. In reviewing this issue the Committee was fascinated to find that artists could give politicians some pointers on factional in-fighting. The Committee has recommended changes to the structure and operations of the Australia Council which we believe will correct these problems. We have recommended that the relationship between the Council and the Government be clearly defined to establish that the Council is independent in deciding between applicants for grants, but that the Government controls policy. We believe that the Government should explicitly control the Council's priorities through approval of the allocation of funding to each of the Council's programs of support. We recommend also that the Minister should have the power to direct the Council on matters other than particular grants. The Committee acknowledges the value of review by peers in an area of technical and subjective judgments such as decisions on arts grants. We do not accept, however, that the present Council structure represents true peer review. The small number of so-called peers on the Council and its boards, compared to the diversity of art forms and issues they deal with, work against true peer review. The Theatre Board, for example, deals with the Australian Ballet, large State theatres and a host of small locally based theatrical companies in such diverse fields as community theatre, children's theatre, dance and puppetry. The Committee does not believe that seven members of the Theatre Board can properly be called the peers of such a diverse range of interests. Even if they could, we believe that the public interest should also be represented in these decisions. We have recommended a number of measures to resolve these difficulties. First, the Committee has proposed that grants to major organisations be grouped into one program as these companies have more in common with each other than they have with small arts organisations. Secondly, we recommend that responsibility for decisions between applicants for most small grants be decentralised to State and local government or to selected locally based organisations. Decisions on how much to allocate to each program of assistance and the processing of applications and payments would remain with the Council and the Commonwealth department. The Committee sees these two measures as enhancing peer review by grouping like programs and by diversifying decision-making on artistic merit. We have also recommended that the broad public interest be more strongly represented on the Council and its boards by the appointment of members from outside the arts community. The community believes that these changes should lead to reductions in the numbers and the status of the staff of the Council's art form boards. The savings from this ought to be applied to increasing arts support to cover the cost of decentralising decisions on small grants and to improve the Council's central organisation. I stress that although these changes depart from recent practice they largely represent the intentions of the Whitlam Government when the Council was created. They also address problems which are not unique to Australia but have occurred in arts councils overseas. The Committee ranged well beyond the affairs of the Australia Council in this inquiry. In particular we were concerned with the lack of co-ordination in cultural policy. Who decides, for example, that there is a correct balance in the allocation of $50m to the arts through the Australia Council; $25m through the Australian Broadcasting Corporation orchestras; more than $100m through tax concessions to film, to name but a few? Cultural spending in Australia is on a much larger scale than it is generally recognised and the Committee believes that there has not been adequate co-ordination of these important programs. We have therefore recommended a stronger co-ordinating role for the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment. Turning to some specific issues, the Committee took a close and perhaps critical look at the so-called flagships: The opera, the ballet and their orchestras. Honourable members who know my personal views on this may be surprised to hear that I have recognised the value of these institutions to the Australian community. I have no doubt that the opera will be surprised to hear that too. We recommended, however, that the flagships should be accountable for the large public investment they represent. This accountability can be achieved by closer scrutiny from the Australia Council and by a clear recognition that even the biggest arts organisation will be allowed to collapse if it proves unable to manage its affairs. We have recommended that the flagships be funded on a triennial basis which the companies claim would considerably reduce their operating costs. In return we have also recommended that funding for these organisations be frozen in real terms for three years. The report also deals with tax concessions to the arts. The scale of these concessions particularly to film may surprise many people and the Committee recommends tighter control of this method of assistance to the arts. I have previously spoken to the House on the cultural value of contemporary music-in particular, rock music. In fact, some of my colleagues still talk to me about my speech asking for a fair go for rock and roll. In this report the Committee argues that contemporary popular music is both an art form and an industry that has been unjustifiably neglected. This is the art form that reaches the widest segment of the Australian community. It is a labour-intensive industry with significant potential for export earnings and for import substitution. Australia, as an English-speaking, industrialised nation, has natural advantages in the contemporary music industry and Australian contemporary musicians have already registered important international achievements. The Committee has recommended a package of simple assistance measures, most of which would be self-funding, which could be of great benefit to this art form. I particularly commend this section of the report to the House. I have already mentioned that this report results from one of the largest and most complex inquiries undertaken by the Expenditure Committee. It could not have been concluded without the competent and dedicated assistance of the Committee secretariat and the members of the Committee. I thank the members of the Committee for the time and effort they gave to the Committee in travelling around Australia to talk to various interest art organisations and to take evidence. The members of the Committee secretariat were also of great assistance. Mr Peter Ratus of the secretariat very efficiently handled much of the complicated organising of public hearings and inspections. Miss Penny Maher coped admirably with many urgent requests for typing. I would also like to commend Mr Andrew Crocker of the Information Systems Office of the Department of the House of Representatives who provided a computer database for the Committee's evidence and supervised the typesetting of the body of the report. I would particularly like to commend the work of Mrs Sue Harlow who was Secretary to the Committee until a few weeks ago and of Mr Peter Hamburger, an adviser to the Committee, who was of great assistance in the research and drafting of the report. Mrs Harlow served the Expenditure Committee exceptionally well in her three years as Secretary to the Committee. During my three years as Chairman of the Committee I have greatly appreciated her intellectual ability and her capacity to enthuse both the members and the staff. Reports such as this are testimony to her skills. On behalf of the Committee I would like to wish her well in her new job. I am sure we will all miss her as time goes on. I suppose I should not have said `as time goes on' as she is sitting here in the gallery. This inquiry dealt with some very complex and controversial issues. The Committee acknowledges in the report that there is little likelihood of achieving consensus on many of them. I believe however that this report will give some focus and direction to the continuing debate and that the Committee's specific recommendations have real merit. I commend the report to the House. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser) —by leave-I would like to make just a few additional comments in supporting the tabling of the report from the Standing Committee on Expenditure. First, the chairman of the sub-committee, the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay), who has just spoken, is to be congratulated on steering this long and complex inquiry through to a conclusion. I also add my support to his comments about the Secretary and the Committee adviser and express warm appreciation to both of them for the excellence of their organisation, research and drafting for the Committee. The report was difficult to prepare because, as it shows, there are widely different views in the community about the nature of the arts, the role of government in arts funding, the extent of government funding and the strategy for the arts. The Committee concluded that there are substantial public benefits from the arts and that these justify substantial government support. Few Australians would disagree that the arts enhance our national identity, influence the way in which we perceive our world, entertain us and help us to relax, increase our understanding of the past and contribute to preparing us for the future. They inspire and analyse and offer both vision and criticism. The arts are an essential enriching aspect of human life. For the same reasons as government is concerned for security, justice and peace, it must also support the arts. Government support for the arts in Australia has increased substantially since the beginning of the 1970s. The Committee has not made an independent study of arts funding levels, but the report quotes a study commissioned by the Australia Council which estimated that government cultural expenditure, which is a broader concept than arts expenditure, totalled $775m in 1981-82. However, this includes expenditure on the Australian Broadcasting Commission, as it then was, and many other activities which could not be classified primarily as the arts. About half of that expenditure was by the Commonwealth and about a quarter by each of the State and local governments. State expenditure has increased significantly in the last decade as arts centres have been built in several cities. Comparisons among countries of expenditure on the arts, which I emphasise is only part of cultural spending, is difficult because of the variety of forms of support. However, on the basis of the inadequate data available to the Committee, it seems that grants to the arts in Australia are well below those in comparable countries. About $9 a head is estimated to be spent on the arts in Australia. This compares with about $14 a head in Britain, $38 a head in West Germany, $43 a head in Austria, $54 a head in France and about $60 in Sweden. These figures come from an article in the Economist of 6 September. If the comparison is valid, it suggests that Australia has considerably further to go if support for the arts here is to be comparable with that overseas. The Committee's report also raises the issue of the balance in expenditure on the various arts in Australia. In particular, the Committee questions the use of tax expenditures as a means of support. Tax expenditures hide the extent of subsidy being provided, so one of the recommendations proposes more detailed analysis and tighter control of the cost of these concessions. The tax concession for film was estimated to cost $95m in revenue forgone in 1984-85. This is more than double the total grant to the Australia Council, which supports music, theatre, literature, crafts and Aboriginal and community arts. This is severely unbalanced. Film would be more appropriately supported by grants, but at a lower level, allowing increased allocations to all the other arts. Increased support for the arts in total would be justified, but whether or not that occurs, the proportion going to film should be reduced and the proportion to all the other art forms increased. The honourable member for Grayndler has summarised the main recommendations of the report. I would like to underline the importance of the preparation of a national cultural strategy. The proposals about relations between government and the Arts Council are also important. Those proposals would enable the Government to suggest broad guidelines to the Council while retaining the principle of arms length funding so that the Council continues to make decisions about individual grants. The suggestions about training and other modest support for contemporary music are also important. I hope that the report will contribute to further discussion within the arts community and that the Government will consider it seriously. I look forward to hearing the responses of both the arts community and the Government. Mr MOUNTFORD(Banks) —by leave-As Chairman of the Standing Committee on Expenditure, on the tabling of this report I would like to thank all members of the sub-committee and the Committee secretariat for the effort that they put into it. The sub-committee Chairman, the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay), has commented on the complexity of the task. The sub-committee took evidence at formal hearings from almost 100 witnesses and collected more than 4,500 pages of written evidence in the form of submissions, exhibits and transcripts of oral evidence. Sifting through this mountain of paper was a daunting task. I am sure that honourable members will appreciate the work that went into this inquiry when they read the report. It is fitting that a Labor government be in office to receive this report, as it was the Whitlam Labor Government more than a decade ago which began in earnest the task of financially assisting the arts after years of neglect by previous conservative governments. Before dealing with the enormous body of evidence on arts funding, the Committee had to consider the fundamental questions of the basis for the funding of the arts in the first place. The Committee's recommendations were based on a broad definition of the arts, which includes not only the more traditional areas of music, opera, ballet and the like, but also contemporary music and more popular and folk culture. This is in accord with the lack of a clear consensus on the meaning of the term `the arts'. The Committee concluded that the basis for arts funding was the ability to maximise the benefits to the community of what Gough Whitlam called `the writing and humanising force' of the arts. Suggestions that Commonwealth assistance is a right of the arts because of some elitist merit were rejected, as was the view that arts assistance should take the form of welfare for artists. I take the opportunity to draw attention to a few aspects of the report. Most public comment on arts assistance focuses on the $50m allocated to the Australia Council. Important though this is, it represents only about 10 per cent of total Commonwealth cultural spending. As this report shows, other Commonwealth cultural spending-on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, on education and in several other areas-dwarfs the allocation to the Australia Council. Total government cultural spending in Australia has been estimated to exceed $775m. More than half of this is contributed by State and local government. The Commonwealth contribution to culture has grown enormously under successive governments since the early 1970s. In the Committee's opinion, the arrangements for managing this large public investment have not kept pace with the growth. The Committee found that there is remarkably little co-ordination of the many programs that account for this large figure and we have therefore recommended a significant strengthening of co-ordination in the area of cultural policy. I see this as one of the most important features of the report. The report also commends three small cultural assistance agencies-the International Cultural Corporation of Australia, Artbank and the Public Lending Right Committee. Although these are not large organisations, the Committee was impressed by the high quality of their performance. I have mentioned that the Committee took evidence from a large number of witnesses. I was impressed by the dedication to the arts of witnesses at those hearings I attended. Finally, perhaps I should comment on the title of the report. The Committee found that much of the contention in the arts assistance field stems from disputes over power-the question of who decides the direction of public patronage. The interaction between this question of power and the creative impulse-which we have loosely termed the muse-was fascinating to observe. Again, I thank those involved in the inquiry, especially the sub-committee Chairman, the honourable member for Grayndler, whose place in Australia's cultural history is no doubt now secure. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert) —by leave-I present the report of the Commonwealth of Australia Branch Delegation to the Thirty-first Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference, held in Saskatchewan in October 1985. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr LINDSAY —by leave-The Thirty-first Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference was held in Saskatchewan, Canada, from 1 to 11 October 1985. A total of 165 delegates, 33 secretaries, three official observers, 36 unofficial observers, together with 20 members of the executive committee, attended the Conference. Ninety-six branches, including States branches, were represented, of which 47 were national or Federal branches. The Commonwealth of Australia Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association sent a delegation of six to the Conference, together with an officer of this House to accompany the delegation as its secretary and to serve on the Conference secretariat. The delegation comprised: Myself as leader; Senator Archer as deputy leader; the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite); the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear); the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher); the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott), and Mr I. C. Cochran, Senior Parliamentary Officer, Table Office, House of Representatives, as secretary. The Canadian provincial branch of Saskatchewan hosted the Conference under the leadership of its President, the Hon. Herb J. Swan, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan and President of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. The Saskatchewan Branch was the first non-national branch of the CPA to host a conference. Saskatchewan is the central Canadian province and it has a relatively small population of 1,029,000. Its largest cities are Regina, where the Conference was opened, and Saskatoon, where most of the Conference was held. Each city has a population of approximately 173,000. Conference tours of Saskatchewan were conducted over three days-on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, 4, 5 and 6 October. Delegates and their spouses were divided into four groups for that purpose and the four different tours covered most of the settled parts of the province. No delegate would have left Saskatchewan without clear memories of the size of the province and the enterprise of the people in withstanding the rigours of the climate and in turning virgin prairie of marginal agricultural value into one of the great granaries of the world. No effort was spared throughout the tours to make delegates feel welcome and `at home' and to provide a detailed briefing on the districts, towns, farms, national parks and other points of interest visited. Each of the four tours terminated in Saskatoon, where all delegates were accommodated in the recently completed Ramada Renaissance Hotel. As this hotel has convention facilities in which both plenary and panel sessions could take place, it was possible for the Conference to be held under the one roof and without the need for delegates to be transported regularly from one point to another. As leader of the Commonwealth delegation, I was the opening speaker at the first plenary session. The topic of my speech was `The United Nations: How can the United Nations be strengthened to enable it to preserve peace and promote disarmament'. I argued that nuclear disarmament should not remain as the principal preserve of the United States and the Soviet Union. I said that all states must participate in arms reduction talks through the United Nations so that all nations could have confidence in future peace arrangements. The speech was well received and was complimented. My deputy, Senator Archer, served as a panellist on the topic `Agricultural prices, production and distribution' and summarised the discussion on behalf of the participants at its conclusion. All members of the Commonwealth delegation participated conspicuously in the plenary and panel sessions and, with Australian State delegates, ensured that a worthwhile and significant Australian contribution was made to the Conference. The briefs provided to our delegates by our Government were of a very high standard and, indeed, members of the Canadian delegation asked for copies of the briefs for the information of their branch secretariat. A former Premier of South Australia, the Hon. David Tonkin, was elected as Secretary-General designate to assume duty on the retirement of Sir Robin Vanderfelt this year. The Rt Hon. Bernard Weatherill, MP, Speaker of the House of Commons, United Kingdom, was elected President of the Association for 1985-86, to succeed the Hon. Herb J. Swan, MLA. Seven new regional representatives were elected. Included in those was the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys), the Government Whip in this House and a member of the Commonwealth of Australia Branch. He was elected a regional representative for the Australia and Pacific region. The election of Mr Humphreys follows changes in the regional representation arrangements agreed to at the 1983 Conference in Nairobi. This Branch is now represented on the executive committee during the years leading up to and during 1988, when the Australian branches will host the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference in Australia's bicentennial year. Now that agreement has been reached among the branches in the region, the Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, Fiji and Commonwealth of Australia branches will be regularly represented on the executive committee. When delegates gathered in the capital of Regina, they were told that Saskatchewan people were renowned for their western hospitality. Speaker Swan and the Saskatchewan Branch interspersed throughout the Conference a program of hospitality and entertainment that gave all delegates first-hand experience of the genuineness of that claim. Delegates were, therefore, able to share in Saskatchewan's heritage year and enjoy performances by various groups representing the province's rich cultural background. An interesting and complementary program was also arranged for the accompanying spouses. During the Conference at the Ramada Hotel in Saskatoon, the Commonwealth of Australia delegation hosted a very successful and well-attended reception for delegates from the Australian States and the Northern Territory, the Pacific islands and the South East Asian branches. I wish to record my appreciation of and admiration for the work of the members and officers of the Saskatchewan Branch, who contributed so much to the success of the Thirty-first Conference. I pay special appreciation to Duane Weiman, MLA, and Bob Myers, MLA, both of the Saskatchewan Legislative Assembly, and their spouses, for their many kindnesses and their hospitality. Great credit is due to the Government, legislature and people of Saskatchewan for their efforts, extending over many months, to make the Conference such an outstanding success. The contribution made by Mr Ian Cochran, the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Australia Branch delegation, was outstanding. His conscientiousness, devotion to duty and attention to administrative detail ensured that the requirements of all delegates and their spouses were adequately catered for. In summary, the Conference was most successful. Discussion of agenda items was informative, educational and useful, and provided an excellent opportunity for delegates from a great number of Commonwealth countries to exchange views on many subjects of mutual interest. It was a privilege for me to lead the Commonwealth of Australia Branch delegation. I thank the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) for appointing me leader of the delegation. I wish to thank co-delegates for the support, friendship and assistance they provided to me and my wife, Maria, throughout our stay in Saskatchewan, Canada. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —by leave-I add my commendations to those expressed by the leader of the delegation, the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay). I pay a special tribute to him for leading the delegation and also leading the debate about the United Nations, which was, incidentally, made at the time of the fortieth anniversary of the United Nations. I had the pleasure, later, of attending the United Nations when some of the speeches were made. I can attest to the fact that the comments made in leading the debate at the first session were well received and well commented upon. I go a little further than did the honourable member for Herbert in my commendations and include, in particular, the President of the proceedings, the Hon. Herb Swan. Our tour visited his farm at Beechey, where we were shown how the great wheat industry works in that area. Surprisingly, except for the chill from the prairies in the north, it could have been an ordinary Australian wheat farm. I pay tribute to Mr Swan for his hospitality on that occasion. I also pay tribute to Mr and Mrs Swan for, on the day of our departure, making themselves available at the airport to farewell every outgoing delegate who travelled by aircraft that day. I met them five hours after their vigil had started. I understand that they were to be there for a further seven or eight hours. I thought that that was a great gesture. I pay tribute to Mr Swan for his sincerity in inaugurating, during the Conference, a prayer breakfast for those delegates who wished to enjoy the spiritual sense of togetherness that the occasion afforded, in addition to the sense of togetherness enjoyed as members of the Commonwealth. We had people from every part of the Commonwealth gathering together in the early hours of the morning to share in that prayer breakfast. I pay great tribute to the Hon. Herb Swan and his wife. I would also like to mention that an Australian, Dr David Tonkin, is now the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. The position was contested but the nomination committee came out quite overwhelmingly for him. I believe he is an appropriate appointment in view of the fact that Australia will host the CPA conference in 1988 as part of its bicentennial celebrations. Of course, he has much to do to live up to the efforts of the previous Secretary-General and the Government Whip's position as regional representative. I found it a great experience to visit Canada and to investigate Saskatchewan and its rural basis, particularly in regard to wheat. Those who believe that Australian wheat farmers are the only farmers who are badly off because of their efficiency in producing for an oversupplied market are mistaken. We could see how the wheat farmers in Canada are trying to compete on a world market which pays very low prices, and where there are large stocks of wheat. Canada, the host country, is very similar to Australia. It is a resource rich country in many respects, not only in rural areas and we had an empathy with them in many of these areas. Some of the subjects which were of interest during the conference were trade and development assistance, the special obligation that membership of the Commonwealth implies, and the debt crisis and international currency fluctuations and what can be done to stabilise the global economy. When we look at the trade and resources of Canada and its debt structure we see that Australia and Canada have much in common. A lot was contributed in those sessions that was of mutual benefit to all. There were the sceptics who thought, that, in the aftermath of the discussions earlier this year about sanctions being applied to South Africa, the CPA meeting in Saskatchewan might have been the last one. I am pleased that that rift did not eventuate and that, far from what the sceptics thought, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association can make contributions. It is interesting to note that the special trip made by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), who is at the table, together with a parliamentary delegation to the United States, was firmly supported by Canada in relation to the wheat subsidy. I would like to think that in some way our contribution at the CPA meeting helped in that regard. As trade is my particular interest, I mention that in dealing with trade the Commonwealth nations can help each other. In fact, at one stage, when we were asking how we could help the developing nations within the Commonwealth, a free trade area within the Commonwealth was suggested. That is a dream and perhaps nothing will eventuate from it, without looking at the nuts and bolts, but that was the feeling of the Conference. Only a few weeks ago five of the nations at the CPA Conference in Saskatchewan came together with others at Cairns in a meeting, which resulted in the Cairns Declaration of the 14 fair traders. Those five countries were Canada, Malaysia, New Zealand, Fiji and Australia. I must compliment the Ministers responsible for bringing together those 14 countries in a common purpose to try to put unsubsidised products-22 per cent of the world market in agricultural products-on to those world markets. I am sure that the Commonwealth played a large part in that. Unfortunately, the very positive thrust that was achieved at the Cairns conference-I think it was more positive than that other conference we hear quite a lot about, which resulted in the accord from the Swiss-Columbian draft, which I understand was a lot weaker than the result they were seeking in that area-has been watered down a lot. Perhaps if Canada had clung a little closer to the Commonwealth in that regard the discussions now going on in Uruguay might have been more powerful as a result. It should have taken the high ground-I will not say the pure ground-and accepted nothing less. I think we and Canada have compromised that Cairns accord to some extent. I believe that the Thirty-first Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference did achieve its aim to discuss matters and spread good will. It is one of the very positive aspects of the CPA. Anybody who goes to a meeting will realise that the good will is spread across all colours, all races, all climates, all sections of the globe, and that the Commonwealth has a very important role. I believe that if we can talk frankly about our trade, our debt structuring, sanctions and so on, we can increase our own performance in the world and certainly we can have closer ties with those countries. I compliment the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay), who led the delegation, Allan Rocher and the other members who have been mentioned. The trip was a great eye opener and it was something that my wife and I will remember for a long time. Debate resumed from 19 August, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Inter-government Relations Repeal Bill Inter-government Relations Repeal Bill Inter-government Relations Repeal Bill Inter-government Relations Repeal Bill Inter-government Relations Repeal Bill Inter-government Relations Repeal Bill Inter-government Relations Repeal Bill Inter-government Relations Repeal Bill Inter-government Relations Repeal Bill Inter-government Relations Repeal Bill Inter-government Relations Repeal Bill Inter-government Relations Repeal Bill Inter-government Relations Repeal Bill Inter-government Relations Repeal Bill Inter-government Relations Repeal Bill Inter-government Relations Repeal Bill Inter-government Relations Repeal Bill Inter-government Relations Repeal Bill Mr MOORE(Ryan)(4.57) —The Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations Repeal Bill seeks to dismiss the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations. I indicate that the Opposition is opposed to that measure. The Council was set up in 1976 as an act of faith of the Fraser government. It was felt that if federalism was to play its full role in Australia a body must be put in place whereby the States could meet with the Federal and local governments to discuss the workings of federalism. There is a model for this in America which has the same name and it has had some success over the years. The Fraser Government believed that the establishment of this Council would do much to improve inter-government co-operation, and its purpose was to inquire into, keep under consideration and review matters relating to inter-government co-operation. The Council consists of 24 members-three from the Commonwealth Government, two from the Commonwealth Opposition, one parliamentary member, one non-parliamentary member from each State and the Northern Territory, five citizens appointed by the Governor-General, and one observer representing the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly-these days that might be difficult. The secretariat for this function was established in Hobart, and it has a permanent staff of 12 and a current budget of $556,000. This funding is divided into 45 per cent from the Federal Government, 45 per cent from the State governments collectively, and 10 per cent from the Australian Council of Local Government Associations. The Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations has worked hard at performing its role in applying itself to the areas in which it was given authority. I think there would not be one member of the House who did not see a duplication of services between the Federal, State and local governments, and I shall quickly mention health services. In Brisbane a person can receive medical attention for immunisation, for example, from either a Federal department, a State department or the Brisbane City Council-all within the space of one mile. I do not think there would be one taxpayer in Australia who could see a justifiable reason for having those three duplicated services. That was but one area in which the Council ought to have looked at rationalising a service. But from the beginning it was evident that the States would not be co-operative in this area. States have regarded local government as their preserve, and quite rightly, because under the Constitution that is the case. The power vested in the Minister under the local government Act gives him complete and almost dictatorial powers in the way in which he can intervene in the affairs of a local government. As a consequence, the Council has not really been able to show its benefits. Indeed, during the Council's first three years of operation, the Queensland State Government failed to send a representative to Council meetings. Despite this, the Council has produced what I would regard as a number of major improvements in the area of intergovernment relations. I will briefly outline these. The infrastructure forum in 1985 recommended that something be done to look at the respective roles of the three spheres of government in the provision of infrastructure. It said that this would show how governments could co-operate better in the building and maintenance of roads, bridges, hospitals, libraries and community centres. All of those areas have a multi-government input. On top of that, the Environmental Protection Agency made overtures to the ACIR on three or four occasions to compile an intergovernment study. Once again, it is hard to define the role of the Federal Government in environment matters, State governments in environment matters and also the local government bodies which have their particular interest in environmental aspects. Mr Cohen —Are you talking to me? Mr MOORE —I am pleased to see that the Minister is present. I thought I would make it interesting for him. Because of that, the ACIR was a body which had a unique opportunity to be able to study the relationships between governments in relation to the environment. While the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) is present, I mention that the Australian Heritage Commission was urged, in conjunction with ACIR, to study the advantages to local government authorities of the Heritage Commission and their involvement with it. The preservation of buildings and the like do impact on local government. Mr Kerin —I am stunned. There is Liberal interest in the environment. Mr MOORE —I am talking about the ACIR. Mr Kerin —ACIR? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —The honourable member will address the Chair. Mr MOORE —I am sorry. There is a difficulty, Mr Deputy Speaker, when Ministers are not too sure what they are talking about. I was talking about the ACIR. Mr Kerin —I have an ACIR-the Australian Council on International Research. Mr MOORE —That is not quite right, but I suppose the Minister will get it right if he guesses again. Nevertheless-- Mr Kerin —Tell us. Mr MOORE —It is the Australian Council for Inter-government Relations. Mr Cohen —Oh, that one. Mr MOORE —That one. It is the one that the Minister could use to make sure that the Federal Government, the State governments and local government get their acts together, in environmental matters, rather than acting against each other, which we see a lot of. Mr Cohen —It would be a pretty good Minister who could do that. Mr MOORE —I thought you all thought that you were. On top of that, the ACIR was invited-- Mr Young —Do you want some speech notes? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will again address his remarks through the Chair. Mr MOORE —I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. These Ministers keep providing me with material and asking me questions. Other possibilities to which the ACIR could have addressed itself were education funding-in which all three levels of government have an input-and community assistance. Indeed, one of the most significant results of work by ACIR came about in this area. I refer to the home and community care program-HACC-which came about as a suggestion from an ACIR paper. Four services were put together to provide input from all three levels of government. It came up with an answer which I am quite sure would have saved everybody a lot of money. We believe that, when one looks at the multitude of services that are provided in a whole range of areas across the board-environment, community services, transport, roads, education-in which local input is important, and is felt to be so, this Council is of particular benefit. The Federal input of $250,000 or thereabouts is a rather small amount of money to be cut out when one thinks that, if the Council were made to work appropriately, its programs were seen to be practical and orientated towards problems within local communities, or State, Federal and local government relationships, the money spent on the Council would save millions of dollars in duplicated services and other features of intergovernment relations. Instead, what has happened? In March 1985 the Federal Government moved to review this body. At that stage the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) sought, through the States, to review the Council's effort to that point. The terms of reference for the review, as agreed, by the member governments, were as follows: - the views of the contributing parties about the value of ACIR's role overall in intergovernmental relations; - whether the membership, structure and functions of ACIR are appropriate to present needs; - whether the financial resources made available to ACIR are adequate and are being effectively deployed; and - assessment of ACIR's research effort to date, its relevance and possible future direction. Only a few months later, in August 1985, the Prime Minister wrote to the States again, indicating that the Commonwealth now believed that it would be more effective and economical for the review to be undertaken by a small group of Commonwealth officials who would be asked to examine three items: Firstly, whether the continued existence of ACIR could be justified as an effective means of improving intergovernment relations; secondly, whether ACIR, by some reorganisation, could be made capable of a more relevant contribution to the understanding of longer term intergovernment issues; and, thirdly, whether acceptable and viable alternatives to ACIR exist or could be developed. The Task Group found that ACIR had made a significant contribution. It found that, indeed, it had built up over a 10-year period a substantial library of knowledge which was available for the States and local government. It had built up within its organisation a considerable degree of expertise in an area in which such expertise was sadly lacking. There would not be one person who did not think that intergovernment relations could not be improved. Despite these particular references-- Mr O'Keefe —You are really making hard work of this, aren't you? Mr MOORE —We will wait to hear from the honourable member. Through the contribution that ACIR has made over the 10-year period, local government has developed. It has been able to approach the Council and put its point of view without being stood over by State Ministers for local government. I think that the discussion papers developed by the Council have made a very significant contribution. The Government set up the Self National Inquiry into Local Government Finance to review payments to the States and what programs could be set up. That inquiry was based very largely on the workings of ACIR. I have not seen figures outlining the cost of the Self report, but I would be prepared to wager that any difference between that cost and the $250,000 that was contributed by the Federal Government to ACIR would have been fairly marginal. Because of that, the value of ACIR stands up far better than the value of the Self report. One might wonder why the Government moved so quickly for the disbandment of ACIR, because it is quite clear that the States have not been behind it. Only Tasmania and the Northern Territory were in favour of its retention; all the other States were not. I wonder why. Quite clearly, it is not in the interests of State governments, and particularly the interests of the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren), who have the total, autocratic power over local government, to have another body which gives people an opportunity to air their views and to know they are getting a fair deal. It is the only body to which the Commonwealth can contribute its views and thoughts and have some accountability for the many millions the Commonwealth now puts into local government. That in itself is worth while. However, one has to raise the question of where the Government really stands in relation to local government if this body is to be disbanded. In the last two years we have seen the development in the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services in Canberra of a section which has no constitutional power in relation to local government. It has grown in staffing alone from 20 in 1984 to 45 in 1986. That is a substantial growth. Compare the benefits of that section, whose administrative costs must now run into some millions of dollars with the benefits of ACIR at which all levels of government are represented, in which 10 years knowledge is resident and which has built up a library of interests. What benefits will there be if it goes? Yet the Federal Department of Local Government and Administrative Services continues to expand. Where is the benefit in that to the people who are the recipients of Commonwealth money, the recipients of advice and care from State and local governments? I think that the role played by ACIR can be justified, that it has made a contribution in this period, that it has provided local government with a forum to put its points of view and that it has been able to assess openly and without intimidation the areas in which there has been massive duplication of services. ACIR can be improved in the future. Millions go into it. Mr Tim Fischer —Would it operate better in Albury than in Hobart, though? Mr MOORE —The location of the Council is something that ought to be looked at. There is no doubt that there is a question about its location. Council meetings are mainly held away from Hobart. Mr O'Keefe —Who put it in Hobart and why? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! I ask the honourable member to address his remarks to the Chair. Mr MOORE —Mr Deputy Speaker, it is all these constant interruptions- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I appreciate that. It is a very trying time. Mr MOORE —Indeed it is. What has the Government proposed as a result of taking away from local government a valuable research centre? It has offered the Australian Council of Local Government Associations based in Canberra $10,000 to replace the ACIR. Well done. What can we do with that? It is hardly enough to sponsor one program. Am I to assume from that that all wisdom will come from the Federal Department of Local Government and Administrative Services? Am I to assume that it will provide all the programs that have been worked out by the ACIR? Will the Council replace that body and have the co-operation of local government within the States? Is it too much to assume that State Ministers for local government will not interfere more rigidly than they have in the past when meetings were held on common ground? What I see is quite clear. State Labor Ministers for local government have had enough. They have come to their mates and said: `This is a major problem to us. There are occasions when local government associations have gone around us to the Federal Government for money. They are now going to the Government through ACIR and getting good ideas on how to rationalise some of the services'. In rationalising some services they are cutting out the State governments and the duplication. They are cutting out the good old pork barrel which so many State governments are particularly adept at using. It seems to be their principal stock-in-trade. That is the real crunch in this situation. Labor Ministers for local government have thought: `This is not a bad preserve for us. Let us keep it that way. Let us advise the Federal Government, particularly through the Prime Minister, to knock out this body and leave it to us. We will take the money, distribute it and exercise the effort that goes with it. We will leave the Federal Government with a department for local government. It ought to be nothing more than a payment agency because it has no role'. However, instead of that happening, that role is bound to increase. Funding will be used in some way to get around the corner to local government through State governments. Programs will be worked up by the Federal department and the independence that has been preserved for 10 years in this body will be lost. Instead of going down that track we ought to address ourselves to the ACIR's work. There is no doubt that, like everything else, it can be improved. Some of its reports strike me as being overacademic, voluminous and sometimes not altogether oriented towards problems that are of immediate concern. Nevertheless, if the Government were to approach the ACIR problem on the basis of what it can do to improve the organisation, rather than what it can do to knock the ACIR out of the road, we would find that the local government associations of this nation and the people who represent their community at the most local level would be far happier. The Opposition opposes the measure. Mr O'KEEFE(Burke)(5.17) —Did the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) not make hard work of that? It strikes me that honourable members opposite are caught up in the rhetoric of Fraserism. During those years and even now the Opposition continually calls for the breaking down of the bureaucracy and cuts in government expenditure. The Waste Watch Committee is supposed to be looking at all these sorts of things. This Government is winding up an organisation that is almost universally accepted as irrelevant-I say this without referring to the work of the people concerned-and cutting back expenditure; yet the Opposition is opposing the measure. Why? What did the Opposition do? When it identified the need to examine all the waste and extra resources that go into the duplication of government, its answer was to set up a body to study the matter and to put it in Hobart. At the time there were pressures for the Fraser Government to demonstrate that it was not a centralised Federal government, that it was a government committed to breaking down centralism. Therefore it set up that body and stuck it in Hobart. The honourable member for Ryan talked about the fact that the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations has produced some wonderful recommendations. However, in the period 1976 to 1983-seven years-the former Government failed to act on any of them. The former Government went down the track of setting up this great body, this extra bureaucracy, and putting it on the path of finding ways to cut expenditure. It oversaw a massive growth in public sector expenditure by the Federal Government, left us with a $9 billion deficit, and honourable members opposite now complain when this Government bites the bullet and says: `This organisation, in spite of all the good work it is doing for local government'-I acknowledge that-`is irrelevant because nobody takes any notice of it and nobody acts on its recommendations'. In the seven years the previous Government had in which to act on its recommendations, it failed to do so. So instead of honourable members opposite honestly accepting a hard but reasonable Government decision, we are back to the usual stuff of opposition for the sake of opposition. I am sorry to say that the honourable member for Ryan made very hard work of putting up his case. All the people out there driving home at the moment in `drive time' who were listening to the honourable member have no doubt changed from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation station to commercial radio, because he did not give them much to listen to. Let us consider the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations. I am one of the members of the Government who have met with the people at ACIR and looked at the work they have done. I recognise that the ACIR has provided a forum for local government. Unfortunately, the Fraser Government failed to act on any of the Council's recommendations. This Government has taken very substantial steps to demonstrate a real commitment to local government. I will turn to that matter in a moment. The purpose of this Bill is to wind up ACIR. I turn to the report of the task force that considered this matter and quote the response of government to the recommendations: Most State governments and Commonwealth departments were sceptical about ACIR's efforts. It was clear that there are significant areas of the bureaucracy, including areas with major responsibilities for inter-governmental relations that were virtually unaware of the existence of ACIR. I ask Opposition members at least to come into this chamber and be honest. They have called for the Government to cut back government expenditure. They have called for the Government to undo the massive bureaucracy that they left behind. We have tackled that very substantially. Now, with another very clear example of the winding back of the bureaucracy, Opposition members attempt to present a case against it. I want to consider a couple of the comments by the honourable member for Ryan, particularly in relation to our commitment to local government. Let us first consider his comment about the establishment of the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services under the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren). Councils all around Australia have unanimously welcomed this Government's commitment in two parts-the first the decision to establish a department to administer local government specifically under the Minister and, secondly, the decision taken from the Australian Constitutional Convention to provide specifically for local government in any revamping of the Constitution. Our commitment was welcomed by local government. When the Department was established the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) received hundreds of telegrams from local councils asking him to appoint the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) as the Minister. The Minister has achieved a very significant rapport with local government. The other point that is worth making in this debate is that this Government-not the Opposition, during the seven years in which it had the chance to act on the ACIR, after having set the thing up in Hobart-instituted the Self National Inquiry into Local Government Finance and has acted upon the recommendations in its report. We are not in the game of setting up reviews for the sake of reviews and then sticking the reports in a pigeon-hole and taking no action. If we set the bodies up, we look at them and listen to them. The Self report's recommendations have been adopted by this Government. The most significant area one can turn to at the moment for evidence of that is the last Federal Budget, because in it the allocation of funding under general purpose funding to local government has been maintained in real terms. At a time when this Government has bitten the bullet and reduced the deficit from the $9 billion left by the previous Government to the $3.5 billion it is now, when this Government has set about breaking down the bureaucracy and set about a review and a restructuring of the Australian Public Service, it has also found the means to maintain in real terms general purpose revenue to local government. Out there, among all the councils, it is the bottom line that counts-`How much do we get?'. Over two-thirds of the revenue raised by councils in Australia at the moment comes from grants by Federal and State governments. Honourable members opposite should not mount a nonsensical case for the retention of the ACIR when their Government failed to act on its recommendations and took no notice of it. They should not complain on behalf of local government when they know that this Government is providing in real terms for their continued funding and is demonstrating in the most significant way its commitment to local government, because it is the bottom line that counts. Some of my colleagues from time to time call me `Mr Local Government' because I have 21 councils in my electorate. Honourable members opposite just happened to pick the wrong issue to take up. Just this week general purpose funding of over $12 million has been announced for the councils in my area. That money helps to provide services directly between State and local government and helps to keep rates at a minimum. We are on about reducing the bureaucracy and about getting value out of the public dollar. We are on about doing what the Opposition talks about. The Opposition talks about cutting down the bureaucracy and in fact it increases it. It talks about cutting back government expenditure and in fact it increases it. It talks about being honest in opposition. I seem to remember the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) saying at one stage: `We will give credit where credit is due'. Honourable members opposite remember it; I remember it. That is where he got the tag `honest John'. Yet, when the Government is putting into effect a very real and significant cut-back in the bureaucracy and in expenditure, Opposition members bring forward drivel as opposition to the Bill. I do not think the case needs any further advocacy. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(5.28) —I am pleased to speak in this debate and delighted that I should have this opportunity to follow the honourable member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe). The honourable member for Burke has had the audacity to stand here, hands in pockets, as the only Government member, if you please, to provide any sort of defence for the Government's decision to wind up the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations. The honourable member for Burke says that Government members call him `Mr Local Government' because he has 21 shire councils in his electorate. There would scarcely be a member on this side of the House with fewer than 21 shire councils. Most honourable members who represent rural electorates such as mine-I have 48-have more than that. Local government happens to matter to rural constituents and to rural members of Federal Parliament. The honourable member for Burke had the audacity to say that out there among all those councils-21 in his case; 48 in mine-it is the bottom line that counts, and so it is. The bottom line of the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations Repeal Bill is the removal of the only body in Australia that brings local government, State government and Federal government together. What is the commitment of this Government to local government? It is to save a miserable $556,000 by removing the one platform that all levels of government share. We all know that the great problem that Australian parliaments face, whether they are State, Federal or local, is the problem of duplication. It takes no imagination, but probably more imagination than the honourable member for Burke has, to make the simple observation that, if one were to eliminate duplication in one area of State, Federal or local initiative, one would easily save more than the budget of the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations. We have a reputation for being a nation that is overgoverned. Horrifically, we have 821 members of State and Federal parliaments. As a result of this system of wall to wall politicians, we have a focus on State and Federal parliaments and we forget that there is every bit as much wisdom currently being spoken in the chambers of local councils around this nation as there is in State or Federal parliaments. Local government has an essential role, but it is a role that can be effectively fulfilled only if its dovetailing role with State and Federal governments is recognised. The Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations was designed to allow that dovetailing to take place and to remove some of the awful duplication that occurs between the roles of State, Federal and local government. We propose that this Council, if it is ineffective, be looked at and made more effective. We recognise that the Council has not been perfect, we recognise that its location may not have been an ideal one; but, in truth, that is no reason to abolish it. The Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations has an essential role to play and we want to see it remain in place to play that role. Look at what happens wherever there is any element of duplication. Look at the way that we, as a Federal government, deal with the States. We rarely wholeheartedly hand to them responsibility for any one area. We maintain our control of health issues without handing them over to the States. We maintain our finger in the education pie without handing it over to the States. We retain an interest in inspectorial services without giving the States full responsibility for them. This afternoon in the Parliament the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) advocated our maintaining control over the arts, even if we decentralise them to State and local government. That is bad enough, but it is even worse when one looks at the duplication that occurs between State and local government. I cannot speak authoritatively for all States in Australia, but in my own State of South Australia local governing bodies cannot even control dogs in their own areas without referral to some State Act. They cannot even maintain their own rubbish dumps without referral to some State Act or some sort of State committee. In South Australia, as in all other States, there are State committees that determine the way local government jumps on building regulations, planning controls and almost any issue that local government has under its de facto control. This duplication costs money. The ACIR is the only body by way of which the three tiers of government can get together, look at the duplication and determine to have a greater level of confidence, one in the other, and to allow each a greater degree of independence. I find it alarming to cast an eye over Budget papers and notice that, as a proportion of gross domestic product, in the last 10 years the cost of Commonwealth government has grown by 33 per cent, the cost of State government has grown by an astonishing 36 per cent and the cost of local government has grown by a mere 19 per cent. I put it to the people listening that local government has the capacity to deliver services in a way which is far more accountable and efficient than is ever open to State or Commonwealth governments, simply because local government is closer to the people. We need to give local government a higher profile and we can do that only by maintaining a council where State, Federal and local governments can meet. I am very conscious that the Government's lack of interest in this legislation is such that only one back bencher is to speak on it. It is inappropriate for me to take up a great deal of Opposition time, given the number of Opposition members who want to speak in support of the ACIR and therefore I conclude my remarks by pleading with the Government to reverse this decision. I point to the fact that, without this body, local government has no platform on which it can share its aspirations with Commonwealth and State governments. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(5.35) —I rise to support the 830-odd local authorities in this country which provide where it counts most a very basic form of government-local government-to the people. Over many years-since before Federation-the work of government has gone from property-type services, which the rates were then inclined to pay for, to what we today call people services. As a result, local government no longer stands alone as a government throughout Australia; it stands solidly as one of the three tiers of government. My interest in defending local government comes, not from representing many shires and councils throughout the electorate, as the honourable member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe) has suggested-councils he obviously does not consult or listen to; it comes from five years experience as an alderman on a city council before I entered this place. They were five very valuable years of experience-experience which I would recommend to anybody seeking office in either State or Federal government. This defence also comes from working for two years with the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations. They were two years in which I met with people from local government who felt, for the first time, that they had a window into the affairs of the other two tiers of government-two tiers of government which they had been made subservient to for so long-and also that they now had an opportunity of participating in guiding their own future. Those people representing local government-one from each of the States-had a dedication which had a profound effect on me, as one of the members on that Council representing the Federal Government. The honourable member for Burke mentioned just a little while ago the need for honesty. I suggest to him that there is no honesty in his suggestion that the ACIR has failed, that it has not performed and that the task force has found the quality of research material wanting. If he reads the Council's annual report for 1984-85 he will find that there is no honesty in his statement. In 1981-82, in real terms, the ACIR has been allowed to wither at the end of the vine for lack of adequate funds to conduct proper research projects. Thus the aspersion is cast. I suggest to him that if he wants to come into this House and talk about honesty he should look at his own performance on television a couple of weeks ago and his comments in support of the fringe benefits taxation, when he had the audacity to suggest, in what he called honesty, that the fringe benefits tax was designed to destroy a rort being perpetrated by the business people of Australia. It was a deliberate untruth. If he wants to come in here to lecture on honesty, I suggest that he look at his own morals in this connection. I have found a very wide acceptance of the ACIR in local government. The ACIR is further removed from members of local government than are the personal income tax sharing arrangements, because they are something they deal with directly, but I just remind the House that the ACIR is part of a Federal package, along with personal income tax sharing. The honourable member for Burke takes credit for dispensing personal income tax. The ACIR was part of a renewed recognition of the way in which local government in Australia performs its duties, not only in terms of those property services but also in terms of duties it performs on behalf of the States and the Commonwealth, as has gradually become the situation over a period of years. I find the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations Repeal Bill extraordinary in many ways. The Council's 1984-85 annual report lists the membership as at 31 August 1985. These members, appointed from the Commonwealth, the States, local government and the community, have appointments that expire, for instance, in the case of the Government member, the honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh), on 12 March 1988. It is extraordinary that these appointments were made to a date in the future, giving the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations the idea that its forward planning would go ahead, when this Bill, on receiving royal assent, will have the effect of destroying the ACIR. The task force has referred to the quality of the ACIR's work, and I assume that the assessment has been made by those who have not been identified in the publications. It so happens that I was part of the ACIR at the time of the publication of discussion paper No. 15 on the intergovernmental aspects of major resource projects and their infrastructure. An unfortunate feature of the ACIR, which I suggest would have been the subject of some correction in the normal course, was that it had the power to make recommendations but no power to implement them. If the reports have not received the support of the States and the Federal Government, it is not the ACIR which is to blame. Responsibility rests with the Federal and State governments for their neglect and for not allowing the references and recommendations to pass into law. The ability of the ACIR to look into all aspects of government intervention in the infrastructure of Australia is to be lost to us, and there was much that was worth while in the ACIR's role. The relationship references dealt with revenue sharing for local government, and I have in mind a submission to the Self National Inquiry into Local Government Finance. I ask: Who made a submission to the Self inquiry? I can tell the House that not one Government member did that. Their disinterest is obvious. I was one who suggested that an appropriate function for the ACIR would be to conduct a review into the relationship between the Commonwealth and local government based on revenue sharing. The honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), the shadow Minister, has asked how much of the yearly contribution that is made to the ACIR could have been used to fund the revenue sharing review, the conduct of which was an additional expense to the Commonwealth. I cast no aspersions on Professor Self, whom I met, or on his recommendations, but we know that the recommendations have not been carried forward in full. However, the ACIR was overlooked when it had the opportunity to carry out some work-work which I suggested to the Minister should be undertaken. The costing arrangement is something which is fairly fundamental. During the time that the ACIR has been left to wither there has been a growth in the local government division within the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services. I am not sure of the number of employees in that area but I suggest that it would be 40 to 50. For the year ended 31 August 1985, the Commonwealth's contribution to the work of the ACIR required the involvement of an average of eight public servants at a cost of $252,000. I suggest that the eight public servants would be better employed within the ACIR than within the Department. The States' contribution in every instance would be less than that for the Secretary to the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services which they fund and which has the personnel and the servants to carry out their orders. The important criterion is the amount of money that could be properly applied. We find at page 31 of the ninth annual report of the ACIR that expenditure at 1979-80 constant prices has been allowed to diminish since 1980-81, to the extent where the funding for 1984-85 was only $359,000. That is peanuts. As I have said, I am here to support the ACIR and local government and I am concerned that the best value for money is obtained. I believe that local government knew that it was getting value for money, in spite of the protestations of the Commonwealth and the State governments. I am sure that those who represent the States appreciate that there is more value attached to the ACIR examining intergovernment relations than there is in any number of ministerial councils that operate between the Commonwealth and the States whose work leads to the double collection of information, something which is entirely unnecessary. Ministerial councils are no substitute for the ACIR. The work that is undertaken by the councils could be performed much better by the ACIR. Over three years the Government has diminished the lot of local government throughout Australia. Mr McGauran —How many government members are in the chamber now? Mr BRAITHWAITE —The Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) is here, but not one of the other 82 Government members is present. That reflects their interest in these matters. Surely it is important that local government knows where it stands. As I have said, the standing of local government has been diminished. The Self Committee was appointed, but contributions from the Commonwealth go against even the Government's own policy, which was that a 2 per cent increase in real terms would be granted. Local government dipped out on $29m worth of grants up to the time when I became shadow Minister for local government, and last year $60m was dropped from its allocation. It seems that that is to be the basis of personal income tax sharing in future. I support the ACIR and the work it has done over a period of years. Unfortunately, it has not been given a fair go and has been left to wither on the vine for the past three years. The repeal of the ACIR following the enactment of the Bill will destroy a mechanism that will not be available to the Commonwealth in any other form. Worse than that, it will destroy the data base, the knowledge and other useful functions that the ACIR has been able to build up. All that will be lost, and that will have a bearing on the good relationships that should exist between the three spheres of government. Mr WILSON(Sturt)(5.48) —I join my colleagues in opposing the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations Repeal Bill. The Labor Government has brought about the abolition of the Constitutional Convention which created local government history in the constitutional development of Australia. Under Liberal and National Party governments, local government was involved in the Constitutional Convention. We are now faced with a Bill which proposes the abolition of the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations. I had the honour to serve on the Council for a period from its commencement and I have had the pleasure again to serve for a short time over recent months. Those who suggest that the ACIR has not been a success have not understood its work and the impact it has had. The protestations of those who claim that it has not been successful are, in some senses, evidence of the very reverse. Those who seek now to abolish the Council are doing so because it came close to the bone in a number of important areas relating to both Federal and State governments. State governments did not want some of the cosier arrangements that exist under our unbalanced constitutional federal system to be exposed. They protest that the federal system is not working effectively but they are the ones who seek to preserve some of the inadequacies of the system. I believe in a federal system. I believe that a federal system is right for Australia, historically and democratically. It is right historically because we became a nation by the joining of six provinces, each of which was an independent political entity at the time of Federation. Bearing in mind that history, I think it important that we retain the federal system. But it is more significant that we retain the federal system and improve its workings because of the value of preserving a system of government that involves the distribution of power. In any country, in any community, it is very important to preserve checks and balances that guarantee the continuance of the democratic system. I believe that our democratic system has, in the federal system, one of those guarantees. As a result of the way the federal system came about we have divided legislative responsibility. At the time of Federation the States gave up some of the powers that had formerly been theirs and conferred them on this Parliament. The checks and balances between Commonwealth and State parliaments are an important part, in the long run, of achieving a far more effective system of government. I know that there are rough edges, difficulties and problems, but those problems are sometimes part of the process of working out what is in the best interest of the community. Furthermore, it ensured that there were parliaments close to the communities of the States. Maybe that is a third reason why a federal system is important. Wherever possible government should be brought, and kept, as close as is possible to the people who are being governed. When the States were provinces they established local government for that very purpose. They wanted local communities to have the opportunity of determining some of the local issues. One of the things uncovered by inquiries of the ACIR was the fact that in some instances local government was established by State governments because they wanted to shift responsibility that they did not want to handle themselves to local government. They wanted an at arm's length money raising body that would look after roads and collect rubbish, and it was not then the purpose of taking government closer to the people. But over the history of Australia local government has become an important entity in our social fabric. It is often said by State parliamentarians in particular, but sometimes by members of this Parliament, that local governments are creatures of the State governments and therefore that is where they should remain. They can be created and they can be abolished. I do not see constitutional development in that way, for if I did I could rise here and say that this Parliament created the governmental arrangements for the Northern Territory. Having created an assembly for the Northern Territory, this Parliament could technically and legally abolish that governmental arrangement. Mr Ruddock —And so could the House of Commons for us. Mr WILSON —Indeed, but not so much us, because by the Statute of Westminster the British Parliament and Government committed themselves not to do that for Australia. Interestingly, the States of Australia are not parties to the Statute of Westminster and its related conventions. So technically and legally the Westminster Parliament could abolish the parliaments of the States. It would be a joke to make such a suggestion. It is an absurdity. But what I am saying illustrates that once parliaments start creating representative government in areas such as local government, or as the Commonwealth has done in the Northern Territory, there does come a time when it is politically unrealistic for the creating Parliament to abolish the assembly or legislative body that it has created. The Constitutional Convention and the ACIR were giving to local government the opportunity of underpinning the guarantee that local government could not be abolished. But the Australian Labor Party here in Canberra, in concert with State Labor Party governments, is abolishing a body that is providing for local government one of the guarantees-limited though it is-that States will not use their ultimate legislative power to abolish and abandon local government, either on an area by area basis or totally. Having spoken at some length on local government, I believe that this is a backward step as far as local government is concerned and that local government is losing, and will lose as a consequence of the abolition of the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations. I now turn to State-Commonwealth relations. The federal system does not always work in an efficient way. One of the major reasons why it does not work in Australia as effectively as it should is the major fiscal imbalance between the Commonwealth and the States. For government to work effectively governments need power to legislate, but they also need a revenue base for which they are responsible. It is my view that, for there to be effective government, the government that spends the money should have the responsibility to its electors about the spending. But equally the government that spends the money should have the responsibility of raising the money it spends. The States do not raise the money they spend. Changes should be made in our constitutional arrangements so that States have that responsibility. Those States protest that they would like the revenue-raising powers but when they get close to having that power they walk away from it. I cannot help feeling that that is just what has happened in relation not only to the ACIR but also to the Constitutional Convention. The ACIR was studying the Loan Council and opening the closed doors as to the machinations and mechanisms of how the Loan Council operated. It was having an effect in the dialogue that was occurring in the relationships that had developed in the Loan Council and could have gone on doing that. Had this Labor Government given the ACIR the resources to enable it to continue that line of investigation, we may well have had an improvement in that area of our Commonwealth-State relationship. At the last Convention everyone said that the Constitutional Convention was a failure and that it never does any good work. Yet, as a member who attended a number of Constitutional Conventions, I believe that the reports that were before the last Constitutional Convention were some of the best that had been submitted to any of the Conventions held. It is interesting that in the report that dealt with the relationships between States on fiscal powers, there was a very serious debate about fiscal balance or imbalance. The report of a committee that involves State and Federal parliamentary representation concluded that there should be fiscal balance, that governments that spend the money should raise the money. Who then wanted the Constitutional Convention abandoned? It was the Labor State governments and a Labor Federal government because they did not want to face that fundamental problem that confronts the federal system and its operation in Australia. I think that is the case with the ACIR. I have been asked to be a little more brief in my remarks than I would normally be because other colleagues of mine want to speak. I just draw the attention of the House to the very significant reports that have been prepared by the ACIR. Many of them are regarded as significant text-book works, and many have had a significant influence upon public thinking on vital issues affecting the structure of government in Australia. I conclude by saying that some fine Australians have made a great contribution through the ACIR. I refer particularly to the chairmen who have taken responsibility for guiding that body-the first Chairman, Professor Russell Mathews, and his successor, Professor Ross Gates. I worked for long periods with those two chairmen, and I commend them for their dedication, their sense of purpose and their contribution to the development of greater understanding within our federal system through the work that they did on the ACIR. I did not have the same opportunity to get to know Terry Purcell, the last Chairman, but from what I saw of him I believe that he was a man who believed that the ACIR had made and could still make a contribution to the advancement of government and parliamentary arrangements in Australia. My final task is to commend the dedicated staff, some of whom were there on contract terms for relatively short periods, and others of whom worked with the ACIR for longer periods. Time does not permit me to identify them individually. It is unlikely that the Opposition will be successful in a debate such as this in this House, but we may find that we can gain the support of sufficient senators to prevent this Bill going through. But in the event that it goes through, I think it is appropriate to have placed on the parliamentary record the appreciation, at least of someone who was on the Advisory Council, of the work of the staff in establishing for the ACIR a record of achievement which has been somewhat denigrated in recent times by those who have simply pointed to some of the weaknesses without being prepared to look at some of its successes. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(6.02) —We are discussing a Bill to repeal the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations Act. That Act established the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations. The Council, established by the Fraser Government in 1976, was created to improve intergovernmental relations and co-operation in Australia. Its functions were to inquire into and to keep under consideration and review matters relating to intergovernmental co-operation. In the course of its work the Council was to investigate areas of intergovernmental concern and to recommend to governments accordingly. Such investigations were to involve research, commission studies, public submissions, seminars, public hearings and the preparation of information papers, reports and the like. State and local government as well as Commonwealth representation were involved on the Council. It brought together people from each of those areas of government to consider the way in which the responsibilities of each of them might be adjusted appropriately to minimise the overlap of powers and responsibilities, to ensure that there was no duplication and to keep bureaucracy to a minimum. Anybody hearing of those objectives would understand that they were very desirable and important and would wonder why Australia should not have a body which is dedicated to ensuring that overlap among governments is kept to an absolute minimum. I suspect that in the battles about power, which are often conducted in the bureaucracy in true Yes Minister form, this body was largely without power in relation to itself and was unable to save itself as people were casting around to find whether they could save a mere dollar or two as we came towards consideration of the recent Budget. If we look at the way in which the project was initiated, we can see how consideration of the abandonment of the ACIR emerged. The ninth annual report of the Advisory Council sets out in chapter IV the circumstances in which an external review of that body was to be initiated. It states that the Prime Minister first wrote in March 1985 suggesting that: . . . the review would be conducted by four persons knowledgeable of intergovernmental problems, chaired by an `independent' and with the other three members representing each of the spheres of government. The terms of reference, set out in the report, were to obtain the views about the value of the ACIR's role in the future, whether its membership was appropriate, and whether it had adequate financial resources to enable it to do its job and to assess its research. That was the task-a proper review of the body. That review was welcomed by all those involved. Yet, in August 1985, the Prime Minister wrote again, saying that the Commonwealth now believed it would be `more effective and economical' for the review to be undertaken by `a small group of Commonwealth officials', who would be asked to examine whether the continued existence of the body was justified as an effective means of improving intergovernmental relations-a charter for its abolition if I have ever heard one-whether by some reorganisation the ACIR could be made capable of a more relevant contribution to the understanding of longer term intergovernmental issues and whether acceptable and viable alternatives existed or could be developed. That was a charter for the Council's abolition. I was not present when the officers were given their brief, but with those instructions it is hard to imagine that they would produce anything other than a report counselling the abolition of the ACIR. Of course, it was that very report that the Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) cited in his second reading speech as the basis upon which the Government sought the abolition of this organisation. When the Deputy Prime Minister introduced this Bill into the Parliament, he told us that it was on the basis of the recommendation of the task group report that this body was not to be continued. I read that document closely. Under the heading `Consideration of the Issues', the first question asked was: Has ACIR been fulfilling the purpose for which it was established? In the area of publications, it was seen to be an industrious body. On the question of whether its publications achieved an effective result, the reviewers were equivocal, but of course they looked at whether recommendations had been implemented. That says more about the governments of the States and the Commonwealth and less about the ACIR, as was suggested by some of my colleagues who spoke earlier in the debate. That was one of the points made by the honourable member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe). The report went on to assess attitudes to the work of the ACIR. I wish to record the following for the benefit of all those who read the speeches made in this debate. About local government the report said: . . . we think it should be accepted that ACIR's work has been of significant benefit in bringing information together on a national basis, often for the first time; in improving understanding of local government systems, their problems and potential; and in stimulation ideas for possible improvement. This in itself is no mean achievement. When one goes to the final conclusions, one finds that the recommendation that this body be abolished was not borne out in the discussion. The conclusions were not balanced in terms of the discussion of the report itself. The recommendations were not put in terms of simple abandonment of this body; the reviewers themselves recognised that alternative approaches should be adopted. The Bill before us simply abandons the ACIR, yet the reviewers in their recommendations said this: If ACIR is disbanded, some increased capacity for the study of inter-governmental relations could be provided in the Local Government Ministers' Conference; and/or in the ANU Centre for Research on Federal Financial Relations. Additionally, Ministerial Councils other than the Local Government Ministers' Conference could be encouraged to take a greater role in this area. That is one of the positive suggestions made, if the body were to be disbanded. Yet, in the Minister's speech we find that no further aspect of research is provided for and no further funding of activities regarding those important research conferences is proposed. If the body is to be retained and reformed, the reviewers suggested in paragraphs 6 (a) to 6 (h) specific programs that could be put in place to ensure that the body was able to function effectively. They drew particular attention to the funding arrangements and said that it should be able to do research in areas recommended by ministerial councils. It suggested the streamlining of research procedures and so on. That is the basis upon which the task force itself recommended reform. There were only two alternatives-that it be disbanded and alternatives put in place, or that it be retained and reformed. What has the Government done? It seeks to abolish the Council as if it had no purpose at all. When one looks at the Hansard record of speeches on the Council made in past years, one sees that a number of very distinguished parliamentarians from the Government benches have spoken. They include a former Prime Minister; that former Prime Minister's son; the President of the Senate, the Hon. Douglas McClelland; the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Gietzelt; and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford). One clear principle emerges from each of those speeches: The then Opposition was never opposed to the establishment of the ACIR. In fact, it endorsed it. Senator Douglas McClelland said: The Opposition does not oppose this Bill to establish an Advisory Council for Inter-Government Relations. In fact we welcome the conservative parties' new found realisation that local government is an important facet of any federal system of government. I do not have time to quote fully the remarks made by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. He made some considerable comments. I shall pass the record of them over to my colleagues to see whether they find any value in them. Mr Andrew —The honourable member for Denison might like to have them. Mr RUDDOCK —The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) might like to have those comments so that he can quote them. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs was very clear in his support for that body. He saw that it should be retained. He considered that it had an important and fundamental role to fulfil. It is not a waste of government funds to look at the way in which duplication of function might be rationalised. Substantial savings could be made in government expenditure if some of the recommendations of the body were taken into account, accepted as clear recommendations and implemented by both the Federal Government and State governments. However, each has specific interests, as I mentioned earlier, in Yes Minister fame. Important bureaucrats in Canberra do not want to see functions lost. They are not keen to see any rationalisation of education that might limit the Department of Education, at a Federal level, or the Schools Commission, and so on. Equally, the State governments, with their bureaucracies, are not terribly anxious to see any devolution to the Commonwealth of the functions that they fulfil. Therefore, the Government says that the body that costs a mere half a million dollars and makes recommendations in that area ought to go. It does not consider the substantial areas of saving. That is the very reason that the Opposition is of the view that the body should not be abolished but should be retained. That is the reason that, when this legislation reaches the Senate, we will oppose it. We hope that we will achieve the support of the Australian Democrats and that the Government and the States will have to find the funds to ensure that this body is able to continue. The Deputy Prime Minister mentioned that the State governments have agreed to the Commonwealth's request for the abolition of the Council. I suspect that they did so more under duress than by design. I suspect that they were told: `We intend to get rid of it, fellows. You have to agree to this'. I suspect that the politicians involved were carried along. I am sure that, when we reject the proposal and the Commonwealth has to write and say `We still have a Council', the States will be willing participants, with local government, in ensuring that that worthwhile body is able to continue its constructive work. I say that as a person who has not been a member of the Council. I make my observations merely as an interested parliamentarian and as one who has a particular interest in local government matters. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(6.15) —I oppose most vehemently the repeal Bill which seeks to abolish the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations. The Council has performed extremely well. There has been a surprising, and perhaps even amazing, turn of events in this debate. Including me, seven members have spoken, six of whom are members of the Opposition. They were my colleagues the honourable members for Ryan (Mr Moore), Wakefield (Mr Andrews), Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), Sturt (Mr Wilson) and Dundas (Mr Ruddock), and only one Australian Labor Party member, the honourable member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe). The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) is waiting to join the list of speakers. My colleagues' contributions were succinct and to the point. I was amazed when I heard the mind boggling statements by the honourable member for Burke. Preening himself with a bit of a smirk, he proclaimed that he was known as `Mr Local Government'. He has the hide of a saltwater crocodile if he can stand in this place and tell the people of Australia that he is `Mr Local Government' and say, in this Parliament, to the people of Australia, that there is no support for the ACIR from local government. I should like to read extracts from one or two letters. Mr Braithwaite —He is the member for local anaesthetics. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for Dawson will cease interjecting. Mr Braithwaite —But he puts everybody to sleep. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Dawson will not trifle with the Chair. Mr NEHL —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I can see that I need your control. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —You need my protection from your colleagues, no less. Mr NEHL —`Protection' is, indeed, the word. A letter dated 22 July 1986 from Kempsey Shire Council states: As you are aware Council recently supported moves by the Local Government and Shires Associations by making representations to you, for the continuation of the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations. . . . However Council recently received a Circular from the Local Government and Shires Associations, which stated that the Associations were disturbed to learn that the Federal Cabinet had decided to recommend to the State Governments- mark that-- that ACIR be abolished. The Associations have urged Councils to make prompt representations to both local, State and Federal members of Parliament in a further endeavour to ensure that ACIR is retained. The honourable member for Burke said that there is no support from local government for its retention! A letter from Coffs Harbour Shire Council, dated 29 April 1986, states: It has been reported that the Advisory Council for Intergovernment Relations is to be disbanded and that a decision on this is imminent. Council views this action with some concern as it has served the process of local government well since 1976. That is the crux of the issue: It has served local government well. It has served Australia well. The honourable member for Burke sneered, in his own inimitable style, at the Opposition's Waste Watch Committee. We are concerned about waste. However, he is wrong to suggest that the ACIR, with a total budget of $556,000, is a waste of money. Only 45 per cent of that comes from Commonwealth funding-a mere $253,000. It is worth much more than that. I refer to the second reading speech of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). He said: As noted in the Task Group report, ACIR has not established a reputation for high quality research generally . . . I refer briefly to some of the publications and the research work done by the ACIR. I mention two reports in particular-`Responsibilities and Resources of Australian Local Government 1984' and `Implications of Constitutional Recognition for Australian Local Government 1985'. Many information papers and discussion papers were written, all of which have been of great value and significance to local government. The Attorney-General went on: Nor have its recommendations on the whole been acted on by participating governments. Strike me pink, it is not the fault of the ACIR that State and Federal governments do not want to act on any of those reports. The recommendations of the ACIR have been useful and it is not its fault that they have not been fruitful. The Attorney-General went on to say: As a result ACIR has had limited success in improving inter-governmental relations, particularly Commonwealth/State relations. I think it is fairly well accepted that the main thrust of the ACIR was in the direction of local government. After all, State and Federal governments have many opportunities for getting together to discuss matters, from the Premiers Conference down, but a voice, a window, for local government was provided with the ACIR. It will be against the interests of local government in Australia for it to be abolished because local government has benefited a great deal from it. I mention in passing that the honourable member for Burke made the point that the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) has considerable respect from local government in this country, and I share that respect for the Minister. I think he is a straight shooter. We know exactly where he stands. I am sure he would never willingly harm anybody. He said in a letter to me dated 17 June 1986: I am aware of the valuable work that the ACIR has done in the field of Local Government relations both with the States and the Commonwealth Government. I will be pointing to this contribution when this matter is discussed in Cabinet and arguing for the continuation of this area of work. Regrettably for the interests of local government and for the interests of Australia, the Cabinet rolled the Minister on this. It will not do any good here because we do not have the numbers, but I urge honourable senators in another place to use their prerogative to defeat this Bill and send it back. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(6.24) —The Hawke socialist centralist Government stands condemned for bringing this legislation into this Parliament to kill the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations. That body was established following an election pledge of the Fraser-Anthony Liberal-National Party coalition in 1975 after very careful consideration by our joint parties. At that time I was a member of the committee on federal policy. We went to the people of Australia with it in our platform in 1975, when we were elected. We brought in the legislation in 1976 and it was passed through the Parliament and supported most eloquently by the former Prime Minister, the then member for Werriwa, the Hon. Gough Whitlam, QC. Amongst other things, in his remarks reported in Hansard on 7 October 1976, he said that the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations Bill accorded some recognition to the place of local government in the federal system. For that reason he supported it. It was also supported by the present Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) and by the then Opposition at that time. On behalf of every federalist in this Parliament, and sadly they are all on this side of the House, on behalf of every Tasmanian member of the House of Representatives-I note the presence of the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck)-and on behalf of those who know that the municipality of Kingborough is the fastest growing municipality in Australia's south island, Tasmania, and that Logan City, which is so well represented by the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull), is the fastest-growing shire in the north island of Australia, I protest against this decision. I think it is a wrong decision. The cost to the taxpayers of Australia is a mere $600,000 per annum. Do honourable members know where the headquarters of the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations are? They are in the electorate of Denison. They were put there by Prime Minister Fraser to signify to the whole nation the commitment of the Liberal-National Party coalition to a federal system. He determined that it would be placed in one of the less populous States. Naturally, when it came to the judging Tasmania was the selected site, and Australia's most beautiful State capital city has hosted this distinguished Council since 1979. The arguments put for its abolition are specious. It is incredible that it is claimed by this incompetent Hawke socialist Government that the ACIR has not established a reputation for high quality research. That is wrong. It has. It is about time the Hawke socialist Government realised what high quality research is. Mr Goodluck —They hate Tasmania. Mr HODGMAN —They hate Tasmania. The Government has said that the Council's recommendations on the whole have not been acted on by participating governments. That is not so. Tasmania has the best State Government in Australia and Tasmania bitterly opposes the death of the ACIR. The Government further said that the ACIR has had limited success in improving intergovernmental relations, particularly Commonwealth-State relations. The Hawke socialist Government does not even mention local government. The ACIR is the only statutory body in Australia in which local government has a place. It mirrors the Inter-government Advisory Council in the United States, which has operated since 1969 with great success. There is a similar body in practically every federal system in the world. We are having another rushed debate, but we will not have time to call a division. I say-and I mean this-thank God for the Senate. I believe the Senate is the States House. A Senate committed to federalism will throw out this rotten piece of legislation neck and crop. I appeal to the Australian Democrats to join with the Liberals, the National Party and Senator Brian Harradine in defeating this legislation. As the time ticks away, both for me in this debate and for the Hawke socialist government, I say that this is typical of a government which treats local government with contempt, which is not committed to the federal system, and which is prepared to repudiate the things it stood for when its distinguished leader was the former member for Werriwa. I oppose this Bill. I hope it is defeated in the Senate and I hope that this rotten Hawke socialist Government is thrown from office at the earliest possible opportunity. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Holding) read a third time. Sitting suspended from 6.28 to 8 p.m. (Budget Debate) Debate resumed from 17 September, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Carlton had moved by way of amendment: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not opposing the passage of this Bill, the House condemns the Government for- (1) the failure of the Budget to tackle Australia's fundamental economic problems, namely: (a) the record and rising level of overseas debt; (b) excessively high levels of government spending and taxation; (c) an inflation rate 4 times the average of our major trading partners; (d) interest rates once again approaching 20%; (e) a wages policy that does not take account of the capacity of individual enterprises to pay, and (f) the pernicious effects of the anti-business, anti-investment taxes such as the capital gains tax and the fringe benefits tax, and (2) the loss of Australia's AAA international credit rating following the failure of the Budget'. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(8.01) —In concluding my remarks on the Budget, I would like to draw people's attention to remarks made by one of the eminent people in our society, one who has an awful lot to say these days, one who tends to like the centre stage-the very eminent John Stone. In 1979, when he was Secretary to the Treasury, he said that there was really no need for a manufacturing sector in Australia, that all Australia needed to do was to export minerals and have a farming economy. This was at the height, of course, of the Liberal Party mining boom which did not eventuate. That was John Stone's professed view in 1979. It is also the professed view of many other people of his ilk. This is simply a rerun of Australia's history. This is what we have done, certainly since the last war. This was one of the great tragedies of the Menzies era. Australia today is more of an economic colony of the United States and Japan that it ever was of Great Britain, principally because the British transferred technology and, of course, Japan and America are much more reluctant to do so. Australia must look to the area of reindustrialisation, for it is only through reindustrialisation of this country that we can secure the jobs that will secure a worthwhile future for our children. I believe that shorter working hours and job sharing are simply palliatives to the middle class. Job sharing is more about more leisure time than spreading the available work. People in our society at this stage need to work. There may come a time in the future when it is not so important, but right now we must have jobs. It must be the priority of any government. Certainly, it is the priority of this Government, which has been very successful in that regard. In choosing industries, we must develop the expertise that Australia has for innovating or inventing and we must capitalise on this intellectual property. We have been very remiss in doing this in the past. (Quorum formed) I thank the Opposition for giving me the audience that I obviously deserve. It is a pity that a few more members of the Opposition are not present to hear a little bit of plain speaking. I was saying, before I was so rudely interrupted, that reindustrialising this country must be our main objective. This is the vision that Australia needs. This is the vision which I believe can unite this country. We must do away with the years of the cultural cringe that we inherited from the previous Government, when it was thought that Australia simply did not have the capacity to do these things. It is very important that the Government's policy of allowing the dollar to float has led to the revitalisation of industry. While the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) gloats and says that it will not work, the truth is that it is working. The J-curve is real. Industry in this country is starting to reawake. Mr Ronald Edwards —They just want to talk the country down. Mr CAMPBELL —As my very good colleague says, they are trying to talk the country down. They believe that that is in their short-term interests. We have seen examples of this from the Leader of the Opposition. In Western Australia, one member of the State Liberal Party actually wrote to the United States Secretary of State, Mr Shultz, urging him to try to undermine the Australian economy further. Mr Ronald Edwards —Was that Ross Lightfoot? Mr CAMPBELL —That was Ross Lightfoot. I believe that his actions were treasonable. It is interesting to note that his statement has never been fully repudiated by the Liberal Party, either federally or at the State level. Members of the Liberal Party think that they are born to rule. They believe that anything is acceptable in their pursuit of power. It is an obscene pursuit of power. Had they been successful, there might be some justification for their trampling on our traditions; but there is no such justification because under their rule industry in this country was slaughtered. Because they had no policy on wages, the Australian dollar was overvalued. One after the other, industries were driven to the wall, and not a word was said by those opposite. They thought it was quite acceptable to extend unemployment for the people of Australia, simply because of their policy failures. People talk about poverty in the community. I am concerned about poverty. But the palliatives that are often suggested are nothing when compared with the creation of employment. The best antidote to poverty is a job. It must be the objective of this Government to continue our efforts to generate employment. Mr Beale —You are not doing much good. Mr CAMPBELL —That is the sort of comment to which I have referred. The truth is that Australia is starting to awake. This country can become an industrial giant if we attend to the things that we are good at, if we allow the full play of initiatives that our people have displayed over time. We must stop allowing our initiatives to be sold overseas for a few shekels when they can be kept here and developed to provide jobs for our people. Some things are dependent on industries that already exist. Obviously, we would be foolish to ignore our natural advantages. I would like to say a few words about the gold-mining industry. I am often accused of being parochial on this matter. There is no doubt that it is of great personal concern to me. However, it is also true that heavy engineering in this country is in a very depressed state and right now the gold-mining industry is driving heavy engineering. The workshops in Sydney, Melbourne and the Hunter Valley are not making anything except material for the gold-mining industry. One of the things about the gold-mining industry is that it has a very high Australian content. The gold-mining industry is an engine that must be used to drag along Australian manufacturing capacity. It would be very foolish in the extreme to put any impediment in the way. While the people in Treasury often have a predilection for putting what they call some form of conformity or equity into the taxation system I say to them: `This argument is not about equity in the taxation system; it is about industry policy and we must now attend to it'. I represent an electorate which has by far the greatest divergence of mineral exports; it certainly has the greatest total of mineral exports in Australia. I know that these industries will not employ people. They are efficient industries simply because they do not employ very many people. That is where their efficiency is derived. We must have the manufacturing sector. People talk about Chifley's light on the hill. This was a great vision of Chifley's. Unfortunately today it is not enough. The division of equity and equality in society, which we all seek, is not enough any more. We as a government have to give direction; we have to show the people of Australia how we can get there. I believe that under the stewardship of this Government we are getting there, but more needs to be done. We need to be out there promoting at every opportunity. It saddens me that on occasions Australian companies have striven mightily to develop a marvellous product and government departments-State and Federal-have gone overseas to buy equipment available in Australia. One of the sad things is that with the current value of the dollar they often pay more for an overseas product which is of an inferior nature to that produced in Australia. Mr McGauran —Give examples. Mr CAMPBELL —One example I can give is a company in Western Australia that has the most advanced system in the world for making micrographic film. It is a very versatile system, works in colour and is not limited to any format. It is completely flexible. That company is selling its products in the United States, France and Germany but it has not yet been able to sell them in Australia. In the meantime two State departments have bought German machines which are certainly of inferior quality. It is true that in that instance the machine was slightly cheaper but it certainly lacked the capacity of the Australian one. Of course with the devaluation in the Australian dollar that situation has changed. That company is just one example. I can give examples all night, some of which, I fear, may be a little embarrassing to my Government. Let me look at one of the most shoddy incidents that took place in Australia. I ask members of the Opposition to cast their minds back to 1963. This was the year when their leader, Mr Menzies, decided that Australia would no longer be a colony of the United Kingdom; it would become a colony of the United States. By cutting our apron strings with Britain he immediately tied himself to the United States. Remember the reprehensible election campaign of 1963-`put your hand in the hand of big brother America'. That election gave us the F111, A British designed aeroplane sold to the Americans and subsequently bought by us. The consequence of that action was that we destroyed the Australian aviation industry, an industry which had a proud history. The British wanted a joint venture with us regarding the TSR2. That plane was at the forefront of avionics. The British are probably still at the forefront of avionics. We could have been there but that was denied us because Mr Menzies sighted some sort of golden era in Australia and was prepared to sell the future of this country for his own short term political gains. The history of the Liberal Party is fraught with that sort of behaviour. Mr McGauran —What about the Wamira aircraft that you killed last year? Mr CAMPBELL —If the honourable member wants to give a better example he would be better off looking at helicopters. I am not saying that this Government is beyond reproach. In fact I am on record as being very critical of what has happened in this area. Overwhelmingly that ethos developed in Australian society. Our cultural cringe is a product of the Opposition's term of government and we are desperately trying to rid Australia of it. Unless Australia can get rid of the inferiority complex which it has developed I do not believe that we can develop the golden future that is ours. I hear people talk of the doom and gloom and about how bad things are, but this is simply not so. Often one finds that is the case. Today Australia is on the edge of a great opportunity. It is a great opportunity not only for the people of Australia but also the people of the world to see what we can do. We can show the world how, through our own initiatives, we can take ourselves through this time of trial we are in into an era when we can provide a future with surety and dignity for our people. There will be a time when Australia can set an example to the rest of the world. I certainly hope that this opportunity will not be missed or stifled by short term thinking that emanates from some circles. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(8.16) —Tonight I wish to confine my remarks to the Federal Government's cynical and ill-conceived equalisation and aggregation commercial regional television policy. Mr Campbell —What? Mr McGauran —Aggregation. Remember the corruption, the sell out to Murdoch and Packer. Mr LLOYD —The honourable member for Gippsland is right in his better description of what the Labor Government's policy is with regard to commercial regional television. The story is that the Government will make a final decision in the very near future. There will be a Cabinet meeting to decide whether regional television, as we know it, is to have a future in this country. I have also been told that the Caucus rural and primary industry and regional affairs committee met today to determine its attitude to this proposal and I have also been told that it agrees to aggregation. If anyone on the Government's side disagrees with that information that has been given to me I would be very pleased to hear it. As I understand it, that committee has sold out to the Sydney television networks, to the views of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), and has given away its basis of representation in regional electorates. Mr McGauran —Which electorates? Bendigo, Ballarat? Mr LLOYD —I will come to them. We should remember that the coalition tonight and tomorrow, whenever debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1986-87 continues, will be commenting on this ill-conceived policy. It is a part of Budget expenditure but it is also a very critical time for regional television. I will be followed on this side by the shadow Minister for Communications, the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee), and others who will speak on this issue. The supplementary licence scheme, which provides an extra channel for regional television viewers, was introduced by the coalition Government in the early 1980s. When the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) and the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown) were the responsible Ministers, they very much supported this policy. When the Australian Labor Party was successful in March 1983 there was a nine-month delay while the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) determined whether that was the suitable policy. After a delay he decided that it was, and I commend the Minister for so doing. It is a fact that the supplementary licence scheme was bogged down. There was no progress because of two factors: As I remember, there was a series of broadcasting and television tribunal hearings concerning Perth as well as those in relation to the supplementary scheme. We required basically two hearings, double applications. But the delay that occurred in the determination of the policy is no reason for the policy which this Government is to foist on regional and rural Australia. The coalition policy, which was recently confirmed by the shadow Minister-and details of which will be given by him-indicates that in government we would provide an immediate supplementary or, if you like, multi-channel system licence for each commercial station which could viably have one to provide that much needed and overdue second channel for regional television viewers. That second channel would be reviewed after some years. An alternative is what the Regional Television Association is proposing at present with its multi-channel system scheme; that is, a second channel for the existing licensee as soon as possible, another by 1990 where viable, and aggregation by about 1996. It can be said by the Government that it has the multi-channel option in its television policy but its option is, as others have described it, very much a Clayton's option because only one television licensee in the potentially aggregated group needs to decide that it does not want that option and aggregation must follow. So it is not really a policy option at all. Why did the Government announce this equalisation policy? We had it from the Minister for Communications in his statement in May. In my view it comes down to a battle between the Minister for Communications and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). That is no secret around this place. The Minister was aware of regional needs and priorities. The Prime Minister was aware of only one thing, and that was the desire to gain for the Sydney television networks the effective, if indirect, control of all commercial television in this country. The networks and the Prime Minister had been frustrated in attempting to achieve this aim by the Satellite Program Service decision the Minister had made at an earlier stage. Why is the Prime Minister so anxious to have the television networks dominate Australian commercial television? The question has been put by certain honourable members on my left, who are also, I acknowledge, very much to the Right. The answer is that the Prime Minister wishes to maintain his favourable image with those television networks, hence my original statement about the cynicism of the whole policy. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! I suggest that the honourable member is working on a supposition. He might bear that in mind and stick to what he knows to be facts. Mr McGauran —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, for my education and that of fellow members, may I ask you which standing order you are following? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr LLOYD —This policy has been foisted on country people. There has been no consultation with them as to the determination of their priorities. If one asks country people about their priorities in communications, one finds that their No. 1 priority is a telephone that works all the time and telephone bills that are not exorbitant. Their second priority in communications is greater choice in radio programs whether it be more commercial radio programs or Australian Broadcasting Corporation FM programs for regional Australia. Their next choice is a second commercial television program or, in some cases, that other alternative, the Special Broadcasting Service. I am presenting to Parliament a petition from my area with over 4,000 signatures requesting SBS for the Goulburn Valley and northern Victoria. Earlier investigations by the Department of Communications ascertained that country people do not want three television programs that are identical. That is what will result from aggregation. Furthermore, the policy will bring the loss of localism, which is tremendously important to regional communities, and a loss of independent ownership. The equalisation policy of this Government is uneconomic in relation to ownership and regional stations. Hence the indirect networking which will occur, which I have seen in operation in the United States of America. Only now has a decision been made that Perth, a city of one million people, can sustain three commercial television stations with a single studio and a single transmitter. Of the different combinations under the proposed aggregation system, not one has one million people in its potential viewing audience. Even in the larger proposed combinations there is an overlap with the metropolitan stations. There is a requirement for multiple transmission systems and multiple studios. The cost to regional television in Australia is to be about $600m-all imported. Honourable members should think of that in relation to our balance of payments. The cost of aggregation or equalisation to the eastern States, which form the basic centre of the Government's program, is to be $335m, and it will be $85m if there is to be the one supplementary or multi-channel station-a $250m difference. That is four years' worth of uranium exports to France. It is fascinating! Exports from this country are important, but this policy is completely unnecessary and will involve a minimum of $335m in imports or possibly $600m over the life of the program. It is stated that the three stations can get their money from increased advertising-all of them with markets smaller than the smallest of the metropolitan stations and with rural and regional economies and advertising revenue in regional Australia stagnating. If this Government is really talking about viable markets for television, there should be six commercial television stations in Melbourne and Sydney. There is already better television choice in regional Australia compared with Melbourne and Sydney than there is in other countries. In other countries it is the major cities where there is the largest number of commercial television stations. One can once again ask: How genuine is this Government with that sort of attitude? There will be a delay in the implementation of this policy. If we were to have the single supplementary program station with orders-which could have been placed 12 months ago-the regionals have guaranteed that they could have that genuine alternative program up and running. In regard to the eastern States section under the Government's equalisation policy there are 24 stations, 48 transmitters and 48 studios. The delay in ordering this equipment once again will further delay the implementation of this program for the people of regional Australia. The people in regional Australia are reacting with anger against Labor Federal members of Parliament in regional seats. Mr McGauran —Bendigo. Mr LLOYD —I will name them: Bendigo, Ballarat, McMillan, McEwen, Calare, Hunter, Capricornia, Herbert and Leichhardt. It is interestingly coincidental that the seats where this policy will have its greatest effect happen to be the marginal Labor Federal seats. The Government can change as a result of basically this one issue. My advice to the regional television stations of Australia is to turn up the heat on those Federal Labor members, to scorch them where it hurts and make the point very clear that there are more votes to be lost by this Government's equalisation policy than there are votes to be gained by the Prime Minister with the networks in Sydney. My advice also is that, as legislation will be necessary, the legislation should be rejected in the Senate, because the more we can delay the introduction of this policy the greater will be our ability, when we win the next election, to overturn the policy and revert to a more genuine, acceptable and viable one. I have some sympathy for the Minister on this matter because I understand that he has been quoted-I apologise if I do not quote him correctly-as referring to some of his Labor regional members as `lions in their electorates and lambs in Canberra'. How about that? I would like to quote from the Melbourne Age of Wednesday, 27 August. The heading was: `Government urged to delay introduction of country TV plan'. I quote: Two Victorian Labor backbenchers yesterday called on the Federal Government to defer its policy of providing rural Australians with a choice of three commercial television stations. It is believed that about six Labor backbenchers have approached the Minister for Communications, Mr Duffy, seeking a delay in the policy which would encourage swift aggregation of regional television into areas each with three networks. . . . . Yesterday, the Labor member for Bendigo, Mr John Brumby, said that while he fully supported the goal of aggregated services it was extremely difficult to justify the cost in terms of the country's balance of payments. He said the plan was a ``lovely notion'' but one that was going to cost $400 million. ``Can you justify that? I don't think I can. Most of the broadcasting equipment required to introduce aggregated services is fully imported. . . . . The Labor member for Ballarat, Mr John Mildren, said he would also write to the Prime Minister requesting that the policy be deferred. Where are these lions in their electorates? The ultimate and correct policy for commercial regional television is to defer any further action by this Government and return to the policy promoted by the Opposition, which was promoted by the Minister and which I believe he still wants to promote, and which is promoted by the Regional Television Association, to have a genuine supplementary alternative program with a viable system for the future of an independent and locally based regional television system in this country. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(8.32) —The approach which I will be taking to the Budget is fundamentally different from the sterile and intellectually bankrupt approach proposed by the Liberal Opposition. The comments of honourable members opposite on the Budget have all been directed to calling for more sacrifices and more taxes on the workers and their families. They want to magnify the current strategy many times over so that this nation will be torn asunder, with the rich becoming much richer and the poor being driven into total despair. Under the extraordinary prescriptions of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) there would be a dramatic reduction in the standards of living of the Australian people, with the creation of massive unemployment and dramatic social problems. Having said that, we in the Left of the Australian Labor Party wish to emphasise our concern that the current economic strategy is mistaken. We believe that this strategy is based on an excessive reliance on conservative economic theory and is in conflict with the values and principles of democratic socialism. In saying this, I reject the claim that the Left seeks to resolve the economic crisis through reliance on traditional and outmoded formulas. We wish to voice the concerns of a large number of trade unions, ethnic groups, community organisations and members of the Labor Party in relation to the decisions. We have faith in the view that the economic crisis can be resolved without abandoning the principles of equality and social justice. Of course, we agree with the Government that there is a fundamental problem in Australia's balance of payments and in our overseas indebtedness. Indeed, various members of the Left had emphasised the seriousness of this issue many months before the now celebrated `banana republic' statement by the Treasurer (Mr Keating). We have been concerned with the failure to achieve the J-curve effect since last year. We have been talking about the need for new trade and industry initiatives based on the platform of the Party since 1984. While we agree that there is a basic problem with our current account, we are concerned that the Government has chosen to abandon its previous strategy of maximising growth. This strategy had the very positive outcome of producing 670,000 jobs in three years. It was based on an expansionary approach to the economy, which created an optimism in the community and positive support for the Labor Government. Within the constraints of that policy we were able to adopt some positive redistributive measures, including action to assist the poor and working families. However, we have serious concerns about the new macroeconomic strategy which has been adopted. In particular, we believe that the strategy of reducing growth as a means of reducing imports is full of dangers. This strategy is based on the assumption that reducing growth will reduce demand in the economy and that this will mean that fewer imported products will be purchased. However, there are important questions which need to be raised here: Firstly, can the reduction in growth be controlled so that we have the 2 1/2 per cent figure as predicted in the Budget Papers, or are we entitled to be concerned that the growth rate may be lower, possibly resulting in a recession? Secondly, will the measures adopted in the Budget achieve the turnaround in the current account and the stabilisation of the dollar, as the Treasurer seems to believe? Thirdly, even assuming that the reduction in government spending of the levels achieved in this Budget can be justified on macroeconomic grounds-- Mr Beale —There was no reduction in government spending; there was an increase in taxes. Dr THEOPHANOUS —The honourable member should talk to the groups whose spending has been reduced, if that is what he thinks. I repeat: Even assuming that the reduction in government spending of the level achieved in this Budget can be justified on macroeconomic grounds, were the cuts which have been made consistent with the principle of restraint with equity, as outlined by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)? I shall attempt to deal with these difficult questions because they have been raised with me by many members and supporters of the Labor Party and many other groups and individuals of goodwill who wish to see not only the re-election of the Labor Government but also the positive restoration of our economy. Consider now the last question. The trade union movement, in the form of the Australian Council of Trade Unions executive, had this to say: The ACTU does not believe that the Budget deals with restraint on the basis of equity. Wage and salary earners in particular have had to bear a heavy burden in accommodating the economic pressures. The additional cost to wage and salary earners imposed by the Budget include the additional tax on petrol, the deferral of the tax cuts, the increase in the Medicare levy and a number of other surcharges representing a significant reduction in the purchasing power of workers. Indeed, the estimate of the Australian Consumers Association of the impact on the average family is a reduction in spending power of the order of $15 a week. Let us then not hear any more of the nonsense from the Opposition about this Budget being insufficiently tough on workers and their families. However, there is an even more disturbing aspect. The Budget was particularly harsh on a number of the poor in our community. The Australian Council of Social Service said of the Budget: In the circumstances, the huge cut in welfare assistance is entirely unnecessary and unjustifiable. It will cause considerable hardship and injustice while doing little or nothing to solve our national economic difficulties. ACOSS identified five areas which have hit people living in poverty. These are: Firstly, cuts of about one per cent in all indexed pensions and benefits through deferring indexation; secondly, cuts of 8 per cent in other benefits and allowances through failing to adjust them for inflation; thirdly, the deferral for another seven months of the poverty traps measures which were a fundamental part of our tax package announced last September, and the most progressive aspect of that package; fourthly, the abolition of the community employment program, a program that most benefited the unemployed who were in the most severe poverty; and, fifthly, large increases in pharmaceutical charges which will particularly hit the working poor. The ACTU expressed a special concern about these measures. It said: The Budget has shown in many cases considerable insensitivity in these and other areas. In addition to these decisions which, in my view, are contrary to the spirit of the social justice strategy of the party as adopted at the national conference, there are a number of decisions about which many groups in the ethnic communities have protested to me. These decisions have been interpreted by them as an attack on multi-culturalism. The extraordinary decision to merge the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service not only flies in the face of the decisions of the National Conference and the Caucus but also has clearly undermined much of the good work which this Government has done in the ethnic communities. This was compounded by the decisions in relation to the cuts in the English as a second language program and the multi-cultural education program. The Government must now act to change these decisions, or at least to mitigate their consequences. In particular, it must act to protect the interests of multicultural broadcasting and pay more attention to migrants' educational needs. Of course, it might be argued that, since the Government was in a difficult position, what else could it have done. Let me say that, even assuming that the cuts were necessary, I do not believe that they have been applied with fairness. It was still possible to achieve greater fairness by imposing some burdens on the rich. (Quorum formed) I was talking about the fact that the Budget could have imposed some further burdens on the rich. Indeed, they have hardly been affected by the cuts. Instead of deferring poverty traps assistance to the poor, why not defer until next July tax cuts to the wealthy, such as those earning above $40,000 a year? Alternatively, the same deficit outcome could have been achieved if the Government had raised more money by imposing a one per cent surcharge on imports, as requested by the national conference. This would have allowed much more flexibility as it would have raised at least $300m, which could have been used to continue expenditures in key programs affecting the poor and ordinary workers. Incidentally, it would have helped also to deal with the current account deficit by reducing imports. There are a number of additional measures in the savings area and in the introduction of redistributive measures which could have assisted us in achieving a fairer outcome. We could thus have avoided decisions such as saving $66m by selling uranium to France. It is well to keep in mind that according to the Business Review Weekly, the wealthiest people in Australia have increased their wealth by in excess of 40 per cent in the past year. There are over 200 multi-millionaires in Australia. Contrary to the claims of the Opposition, the rich have never had it so good. Unfortunately, they have not been investing their wealth in productive enterprises in Australia, which is one of the fundamental causes of our present crisis. I wish now to return to the second question I have raised: Will the tough fiscal strategy of the Government achieve a stabilisation of the dollar and a resolution of our current account problems? So far, the signs have not been very optimistic. In the days following the Budget, the dollar did not increase significantly in value. On the contrary, it became clear that the Government would have to continue to pursue a high interest rate strategy in order to keep the dollar above US60c. Yet the whole point of the low Budget deficit was that it would allow us to reduce interest rates. Clearly, both in their public comments and in their actions, the foreign money dealers who have secured a vicious grip on the Australian economy were not impressed. There were calls for further cuts in expenditure and a freezing of wages, strategies which would destroy the accord. The abuse of power by some foreign dealers knows no bounds. They will not be satisfied until they have destroyed the Labor Government. Of course, they have been supported strongly by the extremist comments of the so-called New Right and their disgraceful apologists in the Liberal Party. It is heartening to see that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in today's Melbourne Age has admitted that the Government has acted to set a minimum value to the Australian dollar through the use of the Reserve Bank. This is a course of action which many of us have been advocating, including the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore). However, it may be necessary to introduce controls further to stabilise the currency, especially if foreign exchange dealers continue in their irresponsible fashion. As my colleague the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) has said, there are a number of possible arrangements which can be adopted to stabilise the value of the dollar. The Government needs to explore these alternatives, especially the possibility of some controls on purely speculative capital flows. Let me turn now to the first question: What happens if we do not achieve the 2 1/2 per cent growth in the economy and are faced with greater contraction in the economy, with increased unemployment? The Budget Papers are pessimistic about the possibility of our being able to achieve any sizable reduction in the huge balance of payments deficit. Furthermore, the Budget supposes that there will be no increase in domestic investment. The question that then arises is whether we are justified in abandoning the successful growth strategy for such a relatively modest outcome. Have we been hoodwinked by the conservative economic dogmas of the Treasury? Rather than relying on traditional conservative solutions to the current account problem, we could have adopted an innovative series of measures which, on the one hand, would have allowed us to continue with the successful growth strategy and, on the other, attack the problem directly with more positive outcomes. Specifically, there are a number of things we could have done. For example, firstly, rather than continue to rely on the possibility that the devaluation will result in increased investment in manufacturing, a matter about which the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, has expressed considerable scepticism, we could have embarked on a large program of direct intervention to rebuild our industrial base. Instead of continuing to lecture sections of the private sector for their failure to invest, we could have put into place industry development measures such as direct government investment in new export industries and potentially viable import replacement industries. Mr Beale —Where does the money come from? Dr THEOPHANOUS —We could also have given tax concessions- Mr Beale —The Prime Minister wants to fight an election on tax but the honourable member for Calwell wants more taxation. Fantastic! Dr THEOPHANOUS —I ask the honourable member not to interrupt. The Opposition is intellectually bankrupt and does not wish to have a serious debate. The only serious debate on the economy is engaged in by honourable members on this side of the House. If the honourable member is quiet he might learn something. We could have given tax concessions for direct investment in new productive enterprises. This could have been paid for by a number of tax measures to discourage purely speculative activities that have been taking place throughout our economy over the past few years, especially in the form of takeovers. Secondly, contracting the economy by a $3,000m cut will reduce imports by only approximately $700m. This is a highly inefficient way of dealing with the problem of import penetration. Instead, we could have adopted direct controls on imports, either through the introduction of quota systems or by the imposition of a surcharge, especially on goods which we can produce relatively competitively in Australia. That was the approach adopted at the national conference. This would have put much greater pressure on both domestic and foreign corporations to invest in Australian production. A strong improvement in our trading and current account positions would have been achieved much more quickly. Thirdly, if we had adopted these measures, together with proposals to introduce some stabilisation of the currency, we would be in a position to meet our commitments to the poor and the unemployed. A higher level of government spending on welfare would have been possible. We would also have been able to avoid the problems of unjustified cuts in education and ethnic affairs. I have set out some of the measures which could have been adopted to resolve our problems. The Government has chosen a different course. If, however, its strategy proves to be unsuccessful, we will be advocating strongly a change of direction, with the implementation of measures such as those I have outlined. In the meantime, the Government must adopt a more flexible attitude towards economic policy discussion. It is necessary for there to be a public discussion of proposals from all sides so that we may be able to achieve the goal we all want; namely, the reindustrialisation of Australia and a strong, healthy economy for all our people. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein)(8.50) —Mr Deputy Speaker, unfortunately a discussion between the Deputy Speaker-not yourself-and a member prevented me finishing a speech on regional television last Tuesday. I was midway through reading a Press release by the Australian Labor Party member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) criticising his own Government's policies on regional commercial television. I now complete my quotation of extracts from his release by reminding the House that the honourable member said that in view of Australia's balance of payments position `it would be irresponsible to encourage the importation of an additional $400m or more of overseas capital equipment'. He added the following two extracts: The vast majority of regional broadcasters provide a first rate service to country viewers, and I am confident that most stations would provide a quality second signal until 1995 if given the opportunity . . . In the meantime, viewers in country and regional areas will gain additional choice and Australia's Balance of Payments will be at least $400m better off than it would otherwise be. Labor's own member for Bendigo is absolutely correct. I explained on Tuesday how the policy will work and how devastating it will be for local employment, local advertising and local programming. The honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) tonight gave an excellent speech with which I completely concur. The judgment of the honourable member for Bendigo is shared not merely by the Opposition but also by media and economic experts. The draft indicative plan produced by the Government is riddled with false assumptions and conclusions. It has shown all the hallmarks of a document which was designed to justify previously decided positions. For example, the draft indicative plan ignores the realities regarding potential increased revenue from advertising. In October 1985 Mr Bruce Cormack, who is the Federal Director of the Advertising Federation of Australia which represents the advertising agencies, told a Department of Communications conference in Sydney that advertising revenues would not rise by as much as the Department was predicting. Mr Cormack repeated those views in the publication Advertising News on 22 August 1986. His conclusion is clear, that the assumptions of the revenue growth in the draft indicative plan are simply wrong. On Tuesday I illustrated to the House the problems of this policy by reference to the State of Victoria. I pointed out that the small market, Mildura, can trigger off an aggregation of Bendigo and Ballarat which is disadvantageous to the two larger ones, advantageous to the smaller, but overall guarantees that the smaller market will start taking network programs from Sydney and in due course the other two will be forced to do the same and eliminate local programming altogether because it would be too costly to produce. That means that under the Government's own policy a multi-channel service is not an option. There will be an automatic triggering of an aggregation in most markets. To show that this is simply not a ploy by the Opposition I will quote some more, first from Mr Harold Mitchell in the publication Advertising News. Mr Harold Mitchell is a media consultant, a principal of a Melbourne media buying consultancy, Mitchell and Partners. He says the following devastating things: The existing 24 markets will be reduced to six which will create tension in the regions rather than produce a highly developed commercial television system that suits both the operators and the viewers. There is little doubt that the government through its various agencies has set the scene for only the big operators to survive. This does not mean necessarily the current owners but quite probably new companies. It seems certain that a process of sellout and merging by current operators is about to take place. In one swoop the government has thrown regional television stations to the wolves and allowed the metro operators into the regions almost overnight. The way it will work is simple. The current stations will be forced by the trigger mechanism into aggregation in almost every market of the six new regions. The trigger mechanism has been described elsewhere, but put simply, if only one station in each of the regions indicates that it wishes to telecast in another market then all other stations in that region have to do likewise. . . . . . . In summary the government believed that advertising would grow in regional markets between 4 per cent and 9.2 per cent in real terms on an annual basis for the next eight years. This is on top of inflation and suggests actual growth in some areas, assuming 9 per cent inflation could be up to 18 per cent per annum. This is idiotic, meddlesome, centralised dogma of the worst kind. I would be proud to have summed up the plan in such strong terms, but this is from a media expert with no vested interest whatsoever in the outcome of these policies. Mr Mitchell goes on: The next five years are simple to forecast. The regional markets will be in a frenzy, and, led by the smaller stations in each market, will aggregate. This could well be started by the likes of Mildura (which has already commenced aggregation), Mackay and others. All regional operators will be forced into heavy capital expenditure in a weakening advertising market. They will be hard pressed, especially the new operators who have paid large sums of money for licences. The cost of money is now very heavy in these dire economic circumstances forced on each of the regional operators, a white knight, or should I say three white knights, will appear on the hillside. They will be the major networks who will suggest an easy way out to each of the regional operators: `Why don't you hand all your television time over to us? We will sell it for you, give you a little bit of money back and you can go back and live on the farm.' Overnight the new regional operators will be based in those wonderful regional towns of Willoughby, Artarmon and Nunawading. There is another point I wish to make to the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham): It is only a matter of time under the new policies of his Government before not only regional culture within Australia but also Australian culture will disappear because the next step is broadcasting from Los Angeles. The technology is now there to do that, so the honour- able member should not be too smug about this. This is a serious issue. As the honourable member for Murray said, this will be a major issue in marginal seats. The honourable member for McMillan should have a look at his seat as it is a serious matter in his area as well. Mr Cormack has a few things to say in the same publication from which I can quote only briefly now. In speaking about the cake not being big enough-- Mr Brumby —What about competition? Mr MACPHEE —I will tell the honourable member a thing or two about competition. Until we have a country with a population size approaching that of the United States he cannot talk about comparisons between the United States and Australia of competition in areas such as television if he is serious about maintaining local programming and community interests. After listening to the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) one can see what a divided outfit this Government is. What a vastly different philosophy is being voiced now by the honourable member for Bendigo and others whom I have quoted. He has to face up to the words he has correctly uttered in that Press release. In the Advertising News Mr Cormack had this to say: The matter we must now consider is what will happen to regional rate cards when there are three independent stations in a market? We already have these facts, or probabilities: There will be no population explosion to increase market size; Total audience size, or viewing capacity, can change only slightly; Total media budgets will not increase. . . . . Conclusion: Audience fragmentation, leading to unacceptable rate cards, could drive advertisers out of regional television. He says: No. The cake is not big enough in our opinion. We would be delighted to be proved wrong-but no one has produced evidence to contradict this view. Not one of the optimistic revenue predictions has been justified in market terms. So here we have a media expert saying that the regional operators will go broke, and that is confirmed by a man representing advertising agencies. He even thinks that the advertising agencies may not think it worth while to be involved. I want to give a further quote tonight to show that this is not a political ploy by the Opposition, from another expert, Mr Hugh Mackay from the Centre for Communications Studies, which is based in rural New South Wales. Mr Jull —An eminent researcher. Mr MACPHEE —He is an eminent researcher, as the honourable member for Fadden says. Mr Mackay makes a very important comment on the socio-demographic aspects of the draft indicative plan. It has been described in many unflattering terms, but I will quote him because he is most eloquent on the subject. On 8 September this year he said: The Draft Indicative Plan also acknowledges that the idea of `community of interest' implies social and economic links between the communities which constitute an Approved Market . . . Having examined the analyses, I have to say that I am positively astonished by their fundamental irrelevance to the process of establishing community of interest within Approved Markets. Indeed, I would go further: far from being ``the building blocks for such identification'', the socio-demographic analyses of Approved Markets actually prevent any possibility of determining homogeneity within AMs. They do not reveal community of interest: they conceal the ``building blocks'' within an aggregation of statistics which simply by-pass the whole question of homogeneity. Let me explain precisely what I mean by the charge of irrelevance. In order to demonstrate a community of interest within an Approved Market, it would be necessary to give socio-demographic detail of each identifiable sub-group within that Market and then show that those sub-groups have so much in common that they constitute, in some sense, a community. I would be confident in suggesting that the people of Bathurst would have no sense of ``community of interest'' with the people of Newcastle or Griffith. But, of course, the Government has placed them together in an aggregated viewing area. He said: I doubt whether the devastation suffered by many Bathurst people in the recent floods was of any but passing concern to the people of Griffith or Newcastle. Nor can I imagine that recent soul-searching in the Griffith community over the Donald Mackay case or the recent murder of a child impinges on Bathurst, Orange, Maitland, Dubbo or Newcastle with anything like the intensity or sense of relevance which it has for the people in the Griffith region. Such examples could be multiplied for every AM listed in the Draft Indicative Plan. It is simply not good enough to suggest that because shopping patterns maybe quite similar (corner stores for groceries, department stores for large items) or that the population visits major towns for medical, legal, or other professional help, this constitutes a ``community of interest'' . . . I simply make the point that the Draft Indicative Plan included virtually no data which impinges on the question of community of interest. It is true that very brief comments are made on such issues as shopping patterns, recreation and sport, and so on, yet, even here, the emphasis is on generalisations rather than on identifying patterns within local communities which would allow us to assess whether those communities share sufficient experiences, facilities, values and patterns of life to feel as though they comfortably fit into a larger community. Mr Mackay, an expert on communication studies and socio-demographic factors, concluded: The Draft Indicative Plan simply failed to address, in any of its statistical analysis, the question of homogeneity within Approved Markets. He also stated: At first glance, many of the Approved Markets would look as though they were extremely heterogeneous and that their aggregation into an Approved Market would be a matter of technical or other convenience rather than having any basis in social cohesion or socio-economic compatibility. That being so, the Department of Communications may as well abandon the whole question of ``community of interest'' and admit that it is proceeding with ``equalisation'' of regional commercial television on technical, commercial, economic or political grounds. As things stand, the question of homogeneity cannot be examined: the mass of statistical data in Part 3 of the Draft Indicative Plan neither confirms nor denies the assertion that AMs are based on a community of interest. The data are simply irrelevant to the assertion. I conclude my remarks by confirming what the honourable member for Murray has already said. The Government has failed. It made no effort to find out what local people want. The consequence of its policy is immediate programming from Sydney with eventual programming from Los Angeles and an end of localism in the regions immediately and ultimately, unless we are very careful, in Australia itself. We oppose the policies announced by the Government. We oppose the aggregation announced by it. We support the immediate issue of supplementary licences so that existing licence holders can provide diversity of programming-a genuine alternative program and a genuine choice, because the existing licence holder will not be in competition with itself and will not be chasing the major mass market. There will be complementary programming between the existing licence holder, the supplementary licence holder, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service, which will give viewers a genuine choice. We wish the NBN application for a writ of mandamus well. We hope that the supplementary licence succeeds. If the Government tries to frustrate that legal action by bringing in legislation to abandon supplementary licences, we will oppose it. If it is wise, the Government will back down for the good of Australia, culturally and in several other ways. The next step for us is to take the Government head on in any legislation which it now proposes. Dr CHARLESWORTH(Perth)(9.06) —For many days now we have been debating Appropriation Bill (No. 1). I suppose that the Government expects some analysis and criticism of its policies on this occasion. We expect a degree of nitpicking, distortion and hyperbole, but above that, there was an expectation on this side of the House that, in view of the gravity of our economic circumstances, the Opposition would put forward some concrete suggestions, or perhaps a prescription for the future and a long term plan and vision. But what we have had from the Opposition-I suppose that we could only have expected it-is the short-sighted approach that it had in government. The honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) suggested that if we returned the free lunch, the free car and the interest-free loan, we would solve all our problems. The honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) hitched his wagon to incentive-a policy that I would perhaps endorse. Indeed, this Government has done much to restore competitiveness in our economy and to provide fairness and incentive in our taxation system. But what was his prescription? He was going to cut public expenditure, yet today we have spent five hours debating two pieces of legislation. One after another, Opposition members have trooped in here complaining, groaning and moaning about these pieces of legislation. Who is going to be cut under those opposite, how and where will it be done and where will the savings be made? According to the member for Bennelong, a few statutory bodies will be done away with. There will also be the opportunity to opt out of Medicare. But it seems that he does not want to explain to the Australian people-those who choose to opt out-what that will mean in terms of their premiums for private health benefits. He does not want to explain to low-income families what that will mean with respect to a possible increase in the levy to pay for the increased utilisation by those in the system. The honourable member for Bennelong suggested that there is a whole wish list of proposals for tax reform and decreasing taxation. These measures would cost $5.9 billion, and they include the introduction of a flat rate of tax, income splitting, the abolition of the fringe benefits tax, negative gearing, the abolition of capital gains tax, et cetera. But can we honestly say that we can believe the honourable member for Bennelong in these matters? I refer to a quote which has already been read in the House today, but which I think is very relevant: Fairness demands that employees who are paid solely in cash-as most Australians are-should not be asked to pay more tax, and thus effectively subsidise, those whose income is obtained partly in cash and partly in the form of valuable benefits of other kinds. Is that a quote from the Treasurer (Mr Keating) or perhaps the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)? No, it is from the honourable member for Bennelong in 1980. He is very careful in his wording when he says time and again `We will remove Labor's fringe benefits tax', because he intends to replace it with his own. Why does he not tell the people of Australia that that is what he intends to do? If he intends to remove the fringe benefits tax and many of the other measures of this Government, does that mean that he will increase the marginal rate back to 60 cents after it has been reduced to 49 cents in the dollar? The people of Australia and the Government are entitled to ask him what he intends to do. In industrial relations, the Opposition has vague policies without any substance at all. Does the Opposition intend, if it ever gets on the treasury bench again, to smash centralised wage-fixing, as it tried to do in 1981 and 1982, with a massive blow-out of wages? Does it not realise that the relativities that have been created by our devaluation provide us with a substantial advantage over most of our trading partners in terms of wage costs? The Government, when it was elected, realised that economic management would be an important aspect of its government, and that perhaps it would live and die on economic management and its ability to succeed in that area. We had seen the neglect and lassitude of the Menzies Government. We had learnt from the mistakes of the Whitlam Government. We had observed the ineptitude of the Fraser years-the failure to grasp opportunity after opportunity. We believed that inappropriate policy and folly over a number of years had led to many structural problems within our economy. Ad nauseam, the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) talked about restructuring our economy, about the need for us to invest in brain-based industries and the need to take decisions. (Quorum formed) The Budget needs to be viewed within the framework in which the Government came to office. At that time, we found ourselves faced with two principal problems. The first and the most immediate problem was that the economy was in recession. We had had negative growth, burgeoning inflation and unemployment, a projected deficit of $9.6 billion and industrial chaos. The growth strategy that the Government sought was effective. We created 630,000 new jobs. Inflation was cut. We had significant growth over a period. The accord allowed us, as no other industrial nation has been able to do over recent times, to climb out of a wage pause that had been placed on the workers of this country by the previous Administration. At the same time, we were able to cut deficits significantly. The second problem that we faced-we realised it at the time-was much greater and the prescription for it was much more long term. The problem related to the basic imbalance in our economy, the fact that our primary industries-farming, mining and energy exports-were dying and their prospects were less than promising. Indeed, the manufacturing industry in this country was in a parlous state. It was uncompetitive and overprotected. There was an essential need for Australia to become competitive and for it to review its structural problems. The Government set about putting in place the fundamentals to do that. The first and the most important decision taken was to float the Australian dollar. We decided that Australia must become part of a world economy and that it must become internationally competitive. It was a brave decision and a decision that the Opposition, in government, could have taken at any time but chose not to do. It is that decision, perhaps more than any other, that has given us the best chance to face up to the problems that existed in our economy. In the area of wages policy, the accord brought about a period of responsible economic and industrial outcomes. There has been a 7 per cent decline in unit labour costs. Disputation is at its lowest level for two decades. At the same time, in a period of significant growth, the accord proved to be a very flexible instrument of policy. Thirdly, we set about reforming taxation. We were aware that oppressive marginal rates were a disincentive. We were aware that double taxation on dividends was a disincentive. We were aware that there was a great need to improve the fairness of our taxation system, that money would be directed more to productive areas by the introduction of the fringe benefits tax, a tax on capital gains, and the abolition of negative gearing. It was no longer possible for those tax havens to underpin those areas of our industry. The Government also embarked on industry plans and developed plans for the car industry, the heavy engineering industry and the steel industry. Presently, it is looking at the clothing and textiles industry. In addition, there was a significant freeing up of the financial markets. In the 1950s and 1960s we took the easy path. We said `She'll be right' and hoped that the sheep's back would provide the answer to our problems. We did not take opportunities to develop manufacturing. The National Party threw around tariffs and bounties like confetti at a wedding. From 1953 to 1983, we moved from the eighth to the twenty-third largest exporting nation in the world. In the 1970s and 1980s, inflation and wages grew out of step with the rest of the world. We looked for the quick solutions. We did not come to grips with the fundamentals. Sooner or later we had to come to the crossroads. Perhaps the floating of the dollar and its subsequent depreciation has wiped the slate clean for Australia. Perhaps it provides us with our best opportunity. In an article in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald, Ross Gittins provided some information on an index of international labour costs per hour for Australia. The information, which was provided by the ANZ Bank, shows that, if one considers Australia as 100 units, comparatively, the cost of labour per hour in the United States of America is 133 units; in the United Kingdom, 141 units; in Germany, 149 units; in Japan, 154 units; in France, 200 units; and in Switzerland, 248 units. Australia is very competitive internationally. We must grasp this opportunity. It will not be easy. The terms of trade will not turn around suddenly. There will not be any quick solutions. The reindustrialisation of this country will take time. What is important is that this Government has put the fundamentals in place to deal with those structural problems. Our opponents are looking for their best prospects of getting into government. They believe that those will come about by a decline in our economy. I do not think that they are really aware of how to attack the structural difficulties that we face. This Government has attacked those difficulties. We have restored our competitive edge and we are determined to preserve it. We are determined to take the opportunity that it allows us to take. There are immediate opportunities in the services industry. Tourism is one that comes quickly to mind. In manufacturing, those changes will take time. The Budget has been framed to allow Australia to take advantage of the fundamentals that we have put in place. It has been accepted overwhelmingly by the Australian people. The Australian of 27 August states that 57 per cent of Australians say that the Budget is good and only 25 per cent say that it is bad. Of coalition supporters, more thought it was good than bad. Even Moody's Investor Services Inc, when it rapped Australia on the knuckles over the international situation and our external debt position, endorsed the domestic Budget strategy. I confidently add my endorsement to its endorsement and I reject the claims of the Opposition. The people of Australia have overwhelmingly accepted this Budget. A former member of the coalition Government, John Hyde, has accepted that the economic management of this Government has been better than his. Indeed, I confidently add my endorsement and reject the claims of the Opposition. Mr JULL(Fadden)(9.21) —Tonight I would like to spend the brief time available to me in discussing one particular portfolio, the Department of Communications. I too would like to direct my comments towards the draft indicative plan for future television development in this country. We have heard a couple of speeches tonight outlining some of the very real difficulties that will face Australia if this plan comes to fruition. There is no doubt that the communications area is one of the most dynamic areas of our society today. While I admit that there are changing aspects of the technical developments in that area almost daily, it would seem that this Government can change its policies almost daily too. I would like to cite as an example of that the government publication of June 1985, the forward development report for the future of television. On page 26, of volume I the Government in fact, just over 12 months ago, spelt out its policy for the future development of radio and television in this country. The Government said, and rightly so at that stage, that it had five major broadcasting policy objectives. It wanted to maximise the diversity of choice, maintain viability of the broadcasting system, encourage Australian production and employment, encourage localism, and discourage the concentration of media ownership and control of stations. So what happened? In about 12 months in came the draft indicative plan that threw all those admirable propositions out the window. By doing that, of course, the Government put into jeopardy the very future of commercial television in the non-metropolitan areas of Australia. I bring this to the attention of the House especially during this Budget debate because the cost involved to the taxpayer is not going to be inconsiderable. The cost effect on our balance of payments is going to be quite horrific. It is very interesting to read this report and to look at some of the figures that have been put up by the members of the Department who undertook that report. We have heard amply tonight what that plan means in terms of aggregating these areas into virtually three networks. In this report, which was released on 17 July this year, it was said that this particular aggregation process would cost the networks some $389m. Mr Lloyd —How much? Mr JULL —Some $389m. What has not been brought to light at this stage is the fact that that was said on 17 July when the yen stood at 162 to the Australian dollar. The facts of the situation are now, of course, that the equipment that is going to be used in the aggregation process will be brought in from Japan. If we look at today's exchange rate we see that it is 94 yen to the dollar. If we do a quick calculation, that quoted cost of aggregation to the regional television networks is no longer $389m but in fact $650m. At a time when the Treasurer (Mr Keating) is terribly concerned about Australia's balance of payments it would seem to me to be absolutely crazy to be proceeding with a plan like this. I think the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) really has to answer some questions. He has to ask himself why, suddenly, there is this rush to get into aggregation. Why is there this rush when we already have the capacity to provide people in regional Australia with a diversity and a choice of television programs purely through the supplementary licence system? That system is cheap and quick and it would be only a matter of months before we could provide the people of regional Australia with choice. We have to ask why suddenly we have this rush. Why suddenly have those propositions for multi-channel services in regional Australia been thrown out the window, especially when it was only a couple of months ago that the Minister for Communications quite rightly put forward that proposition? Why was the Minister for Communications rolled in Cabinet by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)? What is the Prime Minister's real reason for trying to rush this into the country areas of Australia? We already know why that is happening. It is happening purely so that we can have a dominance of the major metropolitan stations across Australia. We must ask ourselves: What is the deal the Prime Minister has done with the major networks? We must also ask ourselves: On what basis were these particular regional areas put in together so that aggregation could go ahead? There is no doubt that it will go ahead. I turn to the Minister's report on those areas. The report was interesting because one of the things that came out was the statement that has been brought up time and time again that one million people are needed to support three commercial television stations in any one area. That was used recently in Perth as the basis for a very real argument, yet suddenly we have these aggregated areas in Australia. It really is most remarkable. I turn to my own State of Queensland. The proposal for north Queensland includes stations in Townsville, Cairns, Mackay and Rockhampton, with a total population of 505,000 people. What is not mentioned is that if we take the tip of the viewing area of FNQ, which is the station in Cairns, and work it down to the southernmost regions of RTQ, the station in Rockhampton, that covers a distance of 1,400 kilometres, which is greater than the distance from Sydney to Adelaide. There is absolutely no community of interest in that. As we have already had other cases cited tonight I will not go into them, but I fail to see what effect the news from Atherton will have on the people of Rockhampton and further south. We go to southern Queensland and look at that aggregated area covering Maryborough, Toowoomba and Warwick, with a total population of 417,000 people, bearing in mind that we need one million people to support three commercial television stations. Let us turn to northern New South Wales, where Tamworth, Taree, Lismore and Coffs Harbour have a total population of 646,000. Let us then go to central New South Wales and Newcastle, Orange, Dubbo and Griffith, with a total population of 911,000. Mr Cowan —Why would they want them there? Mr JULL —The Government wants them to be the subservient tools of the major networks, and that is what worries me. It really throws out that whole concept of localism. I will get back to that later. I want to put these figures on the record because on all the available information there is no viable reason whatsoever for aggregation. Let us go to southern New South Wales-Wollongong, Canberra, Wagga Wagga and Albury, with a total population of 887,000. In Victoria, the area covering Mildura, Ballarat, Bendigo, Shepparton and Traralgon, has a total population of 823,000. Not one of those proposed aggregated markets contains a million people and the only one that gets close to it is that based at Newcastle, which has 911,000 people. So in terms of viability, it just cannot work. What effect will it have on regional Australia? What effect is aggregation going to have on those many hundreds of people who are presently employed in regional television? What effect will it have on the 111 journalists who are employed in regional television newsrooms? This is an important point. The projections show that it is not possible for the regional stations to make a profit under these aggregated proposals. It will not be possible for them to maintain a large staff. We have already admitted that localism is going out the window. So when this is introduced 111 journalists will be without a job. One wonders what the Australian Journalists Association, one of the strongest unions in Australia, is saying about that proposition. We have not heard too much yet, but we can rest assured that as soon as this comes in there will be 111 regional television journalists looking for a job. There is no doubt that there has not been any consultation with the regional areas in devising this proposal. We also hear that we are going to have changes in the future ownership of television in Australia. Does that mean, too, that we will make it legal to have this huge concentration of ownership by the present three major networks cast across the whole of Australia? We know that there will be a decrease in staff. We know that the equipment that must be brought in for aggregation has to be imported from Japan. We want to know what is wrong with the present legislation. We want to know why we cannot have a supplementary licence system to give those people in rural Australia very real choice. Let us look at the facts of providing three network stations in all of the markets around Australia. Government members should do the small exercise of looking at the program guides for channels 7, 9 and 10 for last Christmas. The only non-repeat programs that went to air in the month over Christmas were the news and the cricket. Every other program that was put to air by the three networks was a repeat. Yet the Government says that it will give country people a choice. At least under the supplementary licence system the stations would certainly have the capacity to bring in the best of the available programs of the three networks. That is an absolute fact. So the whole story of being able to provide greater choice, frankly, is not true. I feel very sorry for the Minister for Communications because in this situation he has been rolled. Mr Saunderson —What would you know? Mr JULL —We must ask ourselves why we are destroying an industry which provides a very real service to regional Australia, why we are destroying the capacity of local communities in Australia to have their own local news services-- Mr Saunderson —How do you know? Mr JULL —Why will 111 journalists be thrown out of work? Mr Saunderson —You would not understand. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —The honourable member for Aston will please cease interjecting. Mr JULL —He is quite an interesting fellow, Mr Deputy Speaker. I believe he has many endearing qualities. It is a pity that intelligence is not one of them. We must get to the stage of being even more far-sighted in terms of future development in the electronic media. The rapid development that is happening now in fibre optics and international transmissions could mean that these tremendous investments-in today's dollar figures, they are worth probably about $650m-are all for nought because of the tremendous technical developments that are taking place at the moment. I urge Government back benchers to put as much pressure as they can on the Prime Minister. I urge the Minister for Communications to take up his fight once again with the Prime Minister to have all this craziness thrown out the door. Let us get back to a bit of rationality and let us make sure that we give the people of regional Australia real choice in television programs, but not at a cost that will send those regional stations under. Mr LEE(Dobell)(9.33) —I would like to address a few remarks to the previous speaker, the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull). At one stage he asked: What is wrong with the current position? I will tell him what is wrong with the current position. Mr Nehl —The Labor Government. Mr LEE —People who live in the electorate of Cowper have access to only one commercial television station. The Labor Government wants them to have more choice by giving them three commercial television stations as soon as possible. Honourable members opposite were in government for seven years and regional Australia got nothing. The existing commercial networks had a monopoly. Honourable members opposite were not in favour of giving greater choice to the people in regional Australia through competition. Mr Peter Fisher —And we are satisfied. Mr LEE —The honourable member for Mallee says that he has been satisfied with the current system. I would be very interested, if a poll were taken in his electorate, to find out whether any of his constituents did not want two additional commercial channels. A great Australian, Gough Whitlam, claimed in 1972 that there were times in the history of every country when a single decision of the electors could influence the country's future for many years. He was correct in predicting that the Australian people's decision on 2 December 1972 would close forever the era of dull, tired and uninspired leadership which was provided by the Liberal and National parties. I believe that, as was the case in 1972, when the next election is held-whenever that may be-it will be crucial in determining the future of this country for many years to come. The Labor Government faces a difficult task in lifting Australia out of a balance of payments crisis which has been caused by a decline in the prices which we receive for our export commodities. Ms Mayer —There is no better government to do it. Mr LEE —As the honourable member for Chisholm suggests, no government is better equipped to handle that problem. As each day passes, the Opposition offers more and more extremist policies which are alien to Australians and generate nothing but division and confrontation. We should not forget that the current Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) was the Treasurer during the Fraser years. What did the previous Government offer the people of Australia? It offered lower economic growth, higher unemployment, more bankruptcies, higher inflation and record levels of tax avoidance and evasion. In my view, world economic growth is a very good measure of the health of any economy, particularly Australia's. It is the rate of growth and total national income after one has allowed for inflation. In many ways, it is the rate of growth in the national cake which must then be divided amongst the community. Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to have a table incorporated in Hansard. It was checked by the shadow Minister who was in the chamber previously. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Table 1 REAL ECONOMIC GROWTH Year Year Average 3 Year Average Fraser-Howard Government... 80-81 3.0 1.4% 81-82 2.4 82-83 -1.1 Hawke-Keating Government... 83-84 5.4 4.5% 84-85 4.4 85-86 3.7 Mr LEE —The table demonstrates that in the last three years in which the Leader of the Opposition was Treasurer Australia had an average real economic growth rate of only 1.4 per cent. In the Hawke Government's first three years in office-with the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) as Treasurer-it has produced an average of 4.5 per cent for real economic growth. That figure should be compared with the measly figure of 1.4 per cent in the last three years in which the present Leader of the Opposition was Treasurer. In fact, in his last year as Treasurer of this country we had a decline, a fall-back, of 11.1 per cent-a disgraceful result. Because of this record, I think it is quite interesting that the Opposition is seeking to distance itself as far as possible from its dismal record when it was in government. It is seeking to show that the leopard has changed its spots, that it is not the same Liberal and National parties which failed to deliver and which destroyed the Australian economy. It would like us to forget that the current Leader of the Opposition was the Treasurer who offered us the fistful of dollars in 1977, then took them away in the following Budget. He promised tax indexation and failed to deliver that promise also. He said he would apply a temporary income tax surcharge which would last for only 12 months; yet, when the 12 months were up, unfortunately the then Treasurer, Honest John, had to retract his promise to remove the temporary income tax surcharge. He delivered the biggest recession that this country has had since the Great Depression. In my view, the fringe benefits tax provides a great example of the stark alternative offered by this Government to the conservatives opposite. We have seen in the last five years a rapid expansion in the number of executives and employees on very senior salaries who receive fringe benefits tax free. While lower and middle income earners have all of their income shown on their group certificates at the end of the year, senior executives and top income earners do not have all of their income shown on their group certificates. They do not pay tax on the company car which they are allowed to use for private use. They do not pay tax on the club membership which the employer pays for. They do not pay tax on the holidays for their families which are provided by the employer. They do not pay tax on the credit cards which the company pays for, and they do not pay tax on the health insurance which is also paid for by their bosses. This Government, like the New Zealand Government, has come to the conclusion that the easiest and most efficient way to treat everyone fairly and to tax all of the income of employees is to apply a fringe benefits tax on the employer. Mr Beale —Do you believe that is fair? Mr LEE —I believe it is very fair and very efficient. I will come back to that point in a moment. The fringe benefits tax will raise $310m in a full financial year. That $310m will go towards the income tax cuts which the Government is providing from 1 December this year. In addition, by eliminating tax deductibility for entertainment expenses, we will claw in another $300m. I do not believe that such expenses should be a tax deduction for companies. I was interested to read an article in the Australian Financial Review after the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) addressed the National Press Club shortly after the Budget was brought down. The headline of the article is `Back to the old on incomes and lunches get a break'. The article reads: The Federal Opposition's Treasury spokesman, Mr Jim Carlton, yesterday extended the new spartan tax commitments of his leader, Mr John Howard, by suggesting that business lunches would be tax deductible. Mr Carlton, delivering a post-Budget speech to the National Press Club, said that if business lunches were legitimate working expenses, they would be tax deductible. Whether they were legitimate could be determined by `administrative mechanisms', he said but declined to give details. Mr Price —The log book of entertainment. Mr LEE —As the honourable member for Chifley suggests, the log book of entertainment. Perhaps people should fill out a log book when they are taken out to lunch. The honourable member for Mackellar went on to say that he believed that the fringe benefits tax should not be implied to the employer; it should hit employees. The honourable member for Mackellar is proposing the establishment of a crazy bureaucracy which would seek to keep track of every business lunch to seek to determine whether it was a legitimate business lunch through some vague, administrative mechanism. We can imagine how many thousands of public servants would be needed to keep track of everyone's business lunches. I am sure the public servants would not object if they got a seat at the table. I consider that to be nothing but a total administrative nightmare. The honourable member for Mackellar is not the only person who wants to make employees pay tax on their fringe benefits. Mr Bob Ansett, head of the Budget company, has been very prominent in newspaper campaigns in suggesting that his employees, not Budget, should pay the extra tax. I was interested in an article in the Australian of 12 August headlined `Ansett confident of driving through perks tax loophole'. The article stated: One of the most vocal opponents of the fringe benefits tax believes he has found a loophole to avoid payment. Car rental chief Mr Bob Ansett, who has been heading the Axe The Tax campaign said yesterday that this company, Budget, was `putting its affairs in order so liability has been removed'. He refused to give details of what methods he would be using, but said that for the tax to be levied `you've got to be able to prove liability'. I believe that Mr Ansett also wants his employees to pay the tax. I can imagine the additional staff who would have to be employed in the Australian Taxation Office if this Government ordered every employee to determine whether he or she had received tax free fringe benefits. It is obviously much more efficient to do audits on employers to examine whether tax free fringe benefits have been left off group certificates. While I am on the subject of tax and Mr Ansett, I would be very interested to know who has paid for the `Axe The Tax' advertisements which must have cost a fortune and have been run in many newspapers across the country. If Mr Ansett's company-Budget Rent a Car System Pty Ltd-paid for the advertisements I would be very interested to know whether Budget will seek to claim the cost as a tax deduction. If it does, Mr Ansett, by running these advertisements in newspapers and gaining a lot of cheap publicity, has made every Australian taxpayer pay for 49 per cent of them because that is the appropriate rate of tax on companies. Recently the Australian Financial Review had an excellent editorial on the fringe benefits tax. It was headed `Hypocrisy and whingeing about the FBT' and stated: The campaign against the fringe benefit tax is typical of much that is wrong with this country. . . . . The fringe benefit tax is a method of reducing tax evasion, as part of a broad tax reform aimed at producing more equity and fewer rorts, and improving incentive for effort by getting the top marginal income tax rate down below 50 per cent. The editorial went on to state that while Australian businesses have been bellyaching about the fringe benefits tax New Zealand is now exporting more to Australia than Australia is exporting to New Zealand. The Australian Financial Review editorial commented, quite correctly: Fringe benefit taxes are now well established in New Zealand. While Australian business people whinge, New Zealanders are getting on with business and taking their markets. That is a very appropriate comment which some prominent businessmen, perhaps even the shadow Minister for Housing and Construction, the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) could investigate. I consider it an excellent editorial. As I have said, the fringe benefits tax will provide $300m which will help finance the $4.5 billion tax cuts which the Government will provide by July 1987. It is the most radical restructuring of income tax rates since World War II. I know that all honourable members on this side of the House endorse them completely. Before I conclude tonight, I draw the attention of the House to the level of Commonwealth general revenue assistance to local councils in my electorate. As all honourable members would be aware three councils are included in the electorate of Dobell-Gosford, Lake Macquarie and Wyong. I was interested to learn that Wyong Shire received an increase of 13 per cent in its general revenue assistance but the other councils-Gosford and Lake Macquarie-received only 12.2 per cent and 10.7 per cent respectively. Until last night a very close friend of mine-Councillor Tony Sheridan-was the President of Wyong Shire. He personally is largely responsible, through his hard work and dedication, for Wyong Shire receiving a larger than average increase in funding for local government. For the interests of the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl), after some particularly nasty local government wheeling and dealing-the less said about that the better-Councillor Sheridan unfortunately failed to receive a majority of the votes on Wyong Shire for the first time in three years. As has happened several times before he failed in a draw from the hat. I am sure that Councillor Sheridan will return to the shire presidency in 12 months time and that his next term in office will be even longer and more productive for the local residents of Wyong Shire. Debate interrupted. Madam SPEAKER —Earlier today the Leader of the National Party of Australia, rising on a matter of privilege, referred to a letter sent to the President of the Parliamentary Press Gallery concerning the behaviour of journalists at the main entrance to Parliament House. The issue raised by the right honourable gentleman is not a matter of either privilege or contempt as such: Rather it is a matter of parliamentary administration. I wish to provide the House with some background on this matter. I understand that the President of the Press Gallery was advised by the Security Controller some months ago of problems in relation to the behaviour of media personnel in the area of the front steps and that a request from the President to the offending members of the gallery to observe long standing Press Gallery rules-developed in co-operation with gallery representatives-was ignored. These rules state that television cameramen should avoid using the centre area of the landing and the steps outside the front entrance for the purpose of interviewing members or others. I believe that the vast majority of members of the media who operate within Parliament House are responsible and observe the rules that have been set down over years by the Presiding Officers in conjunction with the Press Gallery. On 14 August the President and I wrote to the President of the Press Gallery complaining about the general behaviour of journalists and cameramen in the vicinity of the main entrance. For example, on one occasion members of the Press Gallery were observed playing with a football on the front steps and when asked by an attendant to desist, became abusive. Coffee cups and newspapers have also been left on the front steps by members of the Gallery. On 11 September 1986 the Acting Security Controller wrote to the President of the Press Gallery expressing concern that rubbish had again been left in clear view on the front steps of Parliament House on 8 September, the day of a visit by the Vice-Premier of China, Mr Wan Li. The letter sought assistance in ensuring that, in future, members of the Press refrain from littering the front steps. On 17 September Mr President and I wrote to the President of the Gallery again expressing concern at the behaviour of journalists at the main entrance. Our letter did say that we found the behaviour totally unacceptable and a poor reflection on the Parliament. We went on to say that if such behaviour recurred we would have no alternative but to ban all journalists and camera crews from waiting or conducting interviews on the steps. The right honourable member expressed concern at this part of the letter in particular and asked in what circumstances a prohibition would be enforced. The letters I have mentioned are but the most recent expressions of concern Mr President and I have had about these matters for some time. We have received complaints from honourable members and the public about littering and also about access being impeded by media representatives. It is no exaggeration to say that there have been numerous grounds for complaint. I would hope that all members would share the concern that Mr President and I have to maintain standards in these matters. The House may be well assured that we have no desire whatsoever to impede or frustrate the workings of the media. We have a responsibility, however, to ensure that the activities of the media within the building and its precincts are not such as would impede members or others, including visitors to parliament, or reflect poorly on the institution. Should media behaviour breach these entirely reasonable requirements, we would be bound to intervene. However it is our sincere hope that this would not be necessary. I table copies of the three letters to which I have referred, together with a copy of the Press Gallery rules. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —I seek your indulgence, Madam Speaker, to comment briefly on the statement you have just made. I thank you for your comments. I say initially that I do not think any member of this House or indeed, I guess, of the other place would endorse the sorts of activities to which your comments were addressed and about which I gather there have been complaints. However, from my personal experience I have found those who have gathered both outside the front steps and in other places around this chamber always to have been quite without reproach. As one who has come and gone and been interviewed by them, not always in circumstances where I have appreciated it, I believe that they are a very important part of the functioning of this chamber and, while we on this side of the House would seek to support you in ensuring that they do not either litter or abuse their privilege, we would be most concerned if the opportunity that there is for them to interview members as they come and go were to be denied them. In that respect in your second paragraph, Madam Speaker, you assert that it is rather a matter of parliamentary administration. I note that interpretation. Perhaps-I do not wish at this stage necessarily to differ with you-it is a matter of interpretation and it would concern us only if parliamentarians were to find that they were not able to meet any media in the area referred to, as it is to a degree in the public place, although I accept that it is in the precincts. I note your judgment, Madam Speaker. If there were to be any further action taken that is perhaps a matter which we hope that you would consider in the light of the absolute necessity in a democracy for people to be able to meet and interview the media and, in my view, for the media to be able to meet and interview members, including the Prime Minister, on any occasion they might seek to do so as they come to and leave this place. I note that you certainly have commented that media behaviour should meet reasonable requirements. I hope that those who are in the gallery take note of your admonition. For our part, while we endorse your remarks in that respect, we certainly believe that it is essential that opportunities for meeting and being interviewed by the Press Gallery be preserved to the maximum. However, Madam, as a matter of standards we were disappointed that when the House resumed at 8 o'clock tonight neither your nor any of your representatives were in the chair. We expect the same standard of concern for the conduct of this affair from you and your deputies as there is from those in the gallery. I know that circumstances can intervene, but my colleague who was on duty in this place found that there was nobody in the chair at 8 o'clock and it was only fortunate that a Deputy Speaker happened to be in the House and the House was able to resume at all. Madam SPEAKER —I thank the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) for his comments and his support in ensuring that the standards of this House are met. May I point out to the Leader of the National Party that one of the rules agreed to by the President of the parliamentary Press Gallery on behalf of the Press Gallery and in conjunction with the Presiding Officers is that television cameramen should avoid using the centre area of the landing and the steps outside the front entrance to the building for the purpose of interviewing members of the Parliament or other persons. It has been the habit in years past for this to be observed. I think the Leader of the National Party himself has expressed concern in the past that visitors and members can be impeded in attempting to see one another or visiting their own members within the House. In regard to my being late tonight, I am sure that the Leader of the National Party has not always been on time himself. I extend my apologies to the House. I had an important engagement outside the House and unfortunately my deputy was held up in the traffic. I think the House will understand these things without too much being made of them. (Budget Debate) Debate resumed. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee)(9.55) —This 1986 Budget is a disaster. It is a tragedy that, at a time when our nation was demanding leadership and a reduction in the cost and burden of government and was crying out for an opportunity and encouragement to use our human and natural resources to pull Australia out of a severe economic downturn, none of these demands were met. The political commentators generally got the Budget all wrong. How the discussions changed a few days later when the economic analysts saw what we in the Opposition already knew. It was just another Labor Budget. The deficit was to be lower, but at the expense of national programs and by increases in taxation and massive penalties to our productive sector. It is often said that a week in politics is a long time. The three weeks that this Government gave itself to sell the Budget must have seemed like an eternity. Everything has gone wrong. Indecision, policy reversals and broken promises have not just destroyed the Government's credibility in the electorate but have also created massive divisions within the Parliamentary Labor Party and its rank and file. Its members are now totally disillusioned, frustrated and betrayed. The credibility of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has been destroyed over the past 12 months. This Budget simply nails down the lid on any future for the Australian Labor Party in office. This Prime Minister, his world's best Treasurer (Mr Keating) and his Cabinet have provided a Budget which is big spending with handouts for anyone with a loud voice, but which is a total failure in meeting the primary task of government. Labor governments have always assumed that they know best and should dictate to society what they believe is necessary and not respond to the cries of the people who are fed up with high interest rates, high taxes and high debts. It is a tragedy to see that this nation has not been able to maintain funds for its research effort or its aid programs. It is a tragedy to see that our education effort has been reduced, that thousands of applicants cannot obtain tertiary education admissions and that our defence infrastructure has been run down. It is a tragedy that nothing has been done to encourage private employers to take on more employees at a time when those supported by government, in other words, by the taxpayer, have for the first time become a larger sector in our economy that those in private employment. At the same time, none of the Government's sacred policy cows, based on its socialist philosophical commitment, have suffered. The Government continues, in the words of one commentator `on its ideological pleasure cruise'. Hundreds of millions of dollars are still being squandered on groups and organisations in a frivolous way. Taxpayers' money goes down the plughole to story-tellers and mural artists in residence for trade unions so they can plaster our urban environment with Norm Gallagher posters and graffiti. I have listened to my colleagues on the other side of the House with interest as they endeavour to justify their Government's action in the midst of public outrage, concern and pessimism. How excited each one of them becomes when he finds some new and increased area of expenditure to hang his hat on. They should re-examine their priorities. Not one Government member has attempted to justify and explain the effect of the increased taxes and the decline in this nation's commitment to its real responsibility in the areas of education, health and production. I turn now to these areas and particularly to the Budget's impact on my rural electorate of Mallee, one of Australia's great agricultural and productive regions. Mr Braithwaite —A great electorate. Mr PETER FISHER —It is a tremendous electorate, and one that is going through some severe difficulties; but we will get out of them. In these rural electorates, despite the devaluation of our dollar and despite the loss of our high credit rating, we now find ourselves in a non-competitive position with all our world competitors. The Government, and particularly the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins), have concentrated their attacks on other trading nations and the protective barriers imposed against our exports. This is an important part of our problem and one that Australian governments should try to influence. But we all know that it will have minimal impact. The real area of Government action is the domestic scene-to reduce the cost burdens on all its citizens- Ms Mayer —We have done that. Mr PETER FISHER —To cut out waste- Ms Mayer —We have done that. Mr PETER FISHER —To reduce public expenditure- Ms Mayer —We have done that. Mr PETER FISHER —And to remove all forms of restrictive work practices-the Government has not done that-and bureaucratic red tape. In this area the Government has failed. Let us look at some of these aspects. The cost of fuel has leapt. In just a few months, through indexation and greed, excise has gone from 6c a litre to 24c a litre. Mr Cunningham —Not diesel. Mr PETER FISHER —I remind the House that all this is from a Prime Minister who promised a 3c reduction. Not diesel, says the honourable member. The latest sleight of hand increase in the price of diesel of 5.8c per litre is just another example in a long series of policy actions that have rapidly increased farm costs to a sector struggling to maintain its viability. Let us look at the comparative position in this respect with the United States of America. In the United States, costs have gone up 22 per cent while their returns have gone up 60 per cent. In Australia the opposite is the case. Australia's primary industry costs have gone up 55 per cent while our returns have gone down 20 per cent. This recent change, which the honourable member for McMillan said has added nothing to diesel fuel costs, in fact has added another $76m to the $715m in increased costs in the fuel area in the Budget. It is incongruous that, in a nation that is so dependent on rural export income, we are now the highest fuel taxed nation in the world, although we are self-sufficient in oil products. For the broad acre cereal producing industries in the Mallee and the Wimmera, this imposes a further threat to their viability. While this is going on, of course, the Reserve Bank of Australia and the Treasurer have crowed about how an additional two and a half billion dollars profit was made on our money through exchange rate transactions, at the same time keeping interest rates up to support the sick dollar. It is equally farcical for the Prime Minister to call on Australians to buy Australian on the one hand, but then tax Australian products out of the market on the other hand. Not only is the Government taking products out of the market, as the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) just said, but also it is driving money out of Australia, off-shore into more favourable investment opportunities. There was simply no justice or reason to impose increased sales taxes on wine or a sales tax for the first time on flavoured milk and fruit juices. It is a scandal. Why has there been this conscious and consistent attempt to strangle these industries? The paradox is that, as programs such as vine-pull schemes are expanded, taxes and further high taxes are being levied on our horticultural industries to get the cash to pay for them. These industries need incentives to export and to improve the quality of their products, the financial capacity to diversify, and, of course, the removal of restrictive trading practices, both at home and abroad; not further cost burdens. We read yesterday of the attack in the Senate by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) on the National Farmers Federation, while that Federation and the farming community it represents are doing their best to survive. What about our regional services? Perhaps there is no more important area of government responsibility than health. Yet we see Medicare levies increasing, the removal of the Commonwealth bed subsidy from our bush nursing hospitals, which is going to drive them into bankruptcy, and the proposed increases in private health insurance. These acts of discrimination and injustice must be overturned, and when the coalition parties get back into government, we will do it. This Government, in its grovelling before the big three in communications, is squeezing to death our regional television and radio services. The regional Australian Broadcasting Corporation services are now under threat and the importance of localism, news and programming is being discarded to satisfy these big networks. The unchecked power of the electronic media could well become the greatest tyranny in our history. Our viewing may even be controlled and transmitted from sources outside this country in the near future. Sadly, this Government, despite the rhetoric and the declaration of war by the Prime Minister, has dodged the real challenge to do something about our economic difficulties. He has not faced up to the clear fact that our welfare state has outgrown our capacity to pay, that there is a deplorable lack of investment incentives, that our wage fixing system is irrelevant, that tax is crippling and that there is now a general lack of competitiveness. In this Budget the Government has not cut anything; it has just kept putting taxes up. To those who want to work and who still have some belief in the work ethic, the Government has said that it does not care. The fringe benefits tax, the assets test and the capital gains tax long ago sank this Hawke Government. I remind the House that it will also sink the Australian Democrats as it plays around with this Government's Budget in small areas. The electorate will not forget the action it took in regard to the Bill of Rights, the fringe benefits tax, the assets test and the capital gains tax-taxes it could have stopped, but taxes which it has allowed to be imposed on the Australian community. This Budget, therefore, ensures that even those hard core Australian Labor Party voters will desert the ship, as the Government has not even had the courage to adhere, as many of its own members agree, to its own principles and policies. We on this side of the House condemn the Government for the failure of the Budget to tackle Australia's fundamental economic problems. We condemn the Budget for the record and rising level of overseas debt that now is $6,000 for every man, woman and child in this country and which is rising at $26,000, a minute. We condemn the Government for its excessively high levels of government spending and taxation, for an inflation rate four times the average of our major trading partners and interest rates that once again approach 20 per cent. In fact, short term interest rates in Australia at this time are 17.4 per cent, while amongst our major competitors the rate for Japan is 4.7 per cent and for the United States of America it is 5.6 per cent. We condemn the Government for this Budget and for its wage policy that does not take account of the capacity of individual enterprises to pay and the pernicious effect of the anti-business, anti-investment taxes such as the capital gains tax and the fringe benefits tax. Mr Braithwaite —It's anti-Australian. Mr PETER FISHER —It is anti-Australian. It is seen to be particularly anti-Australian when we recognise that our world's best Treasurer has ensured that, for the first time, Australia has lost its AAA rating of international credit following the failure of this Budget. Ms MAYER(Chisholm)(10.07) —It was fascinating to hear the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher) carry on in his usual fashion in saying that, if we do not pay tax and we do not pay pensioners the pensions they need, we will all get on a lot better. That is a most extraordinary thing to say; yet that is what we have been listening to for the last few minutes. What a pity it is that we do not have an Opposition that has a policy. We do not have an Opposition that has any kind of planning for the future of Australia. We simply have an Opposition that wants to whinge. Honourable members of the National Party of Australia are not alone in that-they are joined by their friends in the Liberal Party of Australia. This fourth Budget of the Labor Government continues a major thrust of our policy; that is, to provide responsible economic management while at the same time expanding into areas of need-government services and benefits. The Government, as part of its strategy of deficit reduction and providing for identified areas of need, has not taken the easy options available of cutting government expenditure by simply ignoring long-felt community and personal needs, continuing present programs at a reduced level and continuing new funding to groups able to produce a positive political advantage. We are all too familiar with that strategy, as applied by the previous Government to the detriment of the Australian people. This Budget, as with previous Budgets of this Government, has embedded in it provisions which are the results of long-term planning and the reviews that have examined the efficiency and effectiveness of existing policies and strategies, identified areas of need not previously addressed and considered the long term effect of policies. Each year our Budget has put into place a more effective government operation. We have considered not just one year, but the needs of years ahead, while addressing the contemporary problems and necessities. Even in this year of great restraint and zero growth in government expenditure, new programs have been funded through the internal adjustment of expenditure. To name just a few, we have provided for 3,000 extra higher education places and 3,000 occasional child care places; we have put a ceiling on the pharmaceutical costs of the chronically ill, increased the allocation for soil conservation, continued the rationalisation and upgrading of some youth allowances, provided new services under the home and community care program; and, in the defence budget, funds are allocated to complete the project definition study of the new submarine-a project of great importance to Australian industry. Underpinning the Government's ability to reduce the deficit and provide for the needs of a range of groups is the operation of the accord. In spite of the apparent eagerness of some journalists, economic commentators and politically motivated individuals to see the end of the accord, the facts speak for themselves. Wage and salary earners, responsible Australians, have through their unions accepted a real 4 to 5 per cent wage cut at a time when profits have risen substantially. In no other country has such an outcome been possible. It is workers' restraint and responsibility that have made possible the rates of economic growth which this year external economic factors make less possible. It is their capacity for accepting tough times upon which the well-being of this country rests. Those who abuse the workers of Australia should remember that. It is a tragedy that we have an Opposition that is run by the incompetent and sometimes faceless men whose answer to the economic difficulties of the 1980s is a return to the appalling conditions suffered by workers in the early part of this century. (Quorum formed) It is rather ironic that the name of the society which runs the Opposition is that of a man who fought hard for the rights of workers in the mines in the early part of this century. For the wage and salary earners whom we represent, it is important that the services the Government provides meet their needs, the needs of their children and the needs of the older members of their families. Included in this Budget is a provision which is particularly helpful to those who suffer from chronic illnesses. Many of these people are not pensioners and, therefore, have found themselves, especially if they are diabetic, paying many hundreds of dollars each year over and above the Government's contribution to their medicines. These people will pay a maximum cost of up to $250 annually from November, and many will pay less. Diabetics who are taking insulin now will have their syringes provided without cost. Although the cost of the initial 25 prescriptions may be higher, the annual cost could be many hundreds of dollars less. Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr BURR(Lyons)(10.15) —I wish to take strong issue with the President of the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Mr Andrew Hay, who spoke yesterday to a luncheon hosted by the Melbourne Rotary Club. I quote the report of his speech in today's edition of the Australian, which reads: Mr Hay, in the most public warning to the Liberals by the New Right, said Australia had to introduce a tax system with a maximum rate of 30 per cent. Mr Hay is quoted as saying: I and others have made it clear to Mr Howard that if he does not bite the bullet the conservative ground will be populated by other than the Liberal Party. What arrogance! That statement is not made as a threat to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). It is a purposeful and conscious attempt to intimidate every member of the Liberal Party of Australia, both parliamentary and organisational. Do Mr Hay and the Victorian Chamber of Commerce think that they are in a position to blackmail the Liberal Party? Clearly, Mr Hay is putting forward proposals that would suit the sectarian interests of his members, and it is his right to lobby such views. However, the Liberal Party cannot and will not be blackmailed into passively accepting the narrow self-interested views of any organisation. The Liberal Party Federal platform states: Members of Parliament are responsible to their electors alone and not subject to direction by people or organisations inside or outside Parliament. Thankfully, that provision makes one of the greatest distinctions between the Liberal Party and the Labor Party. Independence from outside organisations has always been a central pillar of the Liberal Party. I quote Sir William Spooner in the Sydney Morning Herald of 18 December 1945, who said: A political party cannot retain public confidence if there is doubt in the public mind as to its complete freedom from any influence or control. If Mr Hay wishes to influence Liberal Party policy, he should debate his points in the various forums of the Party and test their acceptability by a free and democratic vote of Party members. However, while the Liberal Party platform remains worded as it is, there is no way in which the Victorian Chamber of Commerce or any other organisation can dictate to the Liberal Party by way of threats or intimidation. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(10.19) —I wish to raise a matter that relates to a newspaper in Australia, the so-called family newspaper, the Sunday Telegraph, and more particularly last Sunday's issue of 14 September. I do so in the context that I think newspapers have a responsibility to provide accurate information to the public. Last Sunday, while travelling through New South Wales after I had spent three days in that State with the country task force of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), I noticed a poster displayed outside many of the milk bars. I have the poster here and it reads: `Kids to be hit by FBT'. I stopped the car and decided to buy a copy of the Sunday Telegraph. For three days I and my colleagues had been listening to much misinformation produced by the National Party of Australia about FBT, and I proceeded to read through the newspaper to find the story. I believe that it is very wrong to have such a poster outside milk bars giving such a message to the public when there is not one story in the newspaper that mentions anything relating to the poster. It is wrong that a newspaper should place a poster such as this in a place in that paper where everybody can read it, a poster in a family newspaper which says `Kids to be hit by FBT', and then not follow it up with a story. Having bought the newspaper, I decided to plough my may through it to see what it had to say. It has an editorial in relation to the fringe benefits tax. It says that there are too many holes in the FBT bucket. I would like to take a couple of points from the editorial to give an illustration of the misinformation that is being provided. The newspaper in its editorial makes the claim that government departments will be paying the FBT-in other words, for public servants and politicians from both sides of the House-that governments do not have money of their own and that this is something new-something new for governments to be taxing themselves. I am afraid that the newspaper apparently does not realise that every person who works for a department, whether it be the Australian Taxation Office, the Department of Defence or any other department at the Federal level, is certainly paying pay as you earn tax and has been doing so since the PAYE system was introduced. This newspaper is amazed that governments are now paying tax on their own employees. It does not realise that there are people in the community who receive their accommodation or other benefits over and above their salary and wage and have been getting away with it. That is the issue. This newspaper has tried to develop a story which clearly indicates that the Government is doing something new by collecting tax and paying it to the Treasury. Everybody would be aware, I would expect, except for the editor of this newspaper, the writer of the article, that this is not so. The editor believes that this is something new, that government departments taking tax from their employees is something new. I honestly believe that a power such as this is so misleading that it is my intention to draw it to the attention of the Press Council. Those of us who toured Australia with the task force of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) had clear indication of the deliberate misrepresentation that has been put around about the FBT. It has been reported to our committee over and over again that the tax will impact upon people in certain circumstances and that those persons-country-wide-have enough problems with the downturn in commodity prices without having to deal with the total misinformation that is provided. The only statement that I have found in the last month where this has been mentioned at all was one by the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair), who, I understand, was making a claim that had something to do with people who drive their children to school or drive them to catch a bus being taxed for their efforts. It is a disgrace that this sort of misinformation has been peddled. It is a disgrace for a newspaper such as the Sunday Telegraph to take the position of presenting a poster which is absolutely false and misleading. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr COBB(Parkes)(10.24) —Many Australians are becoming alarmed at this Government's support of overseas terrorist organisations. There has been the recent exposure that the Australia Council blatantly used taxpayers' money-$5,000 of it-with the full support of this Government to fund the Palestine Liberation Organisation operation in Australia known as the Palestine Information Office. This office in Melbourne is headed by the self-styled PLO representative in Australia, Mr Ali Kazak. Equally disturbing is the desire of the Government to fund and lend support to African terrorist organisations. It has already given its blessing to the establishment of an information office for the African National Congress and the South West African People's Organisation. The Government invited them here. It has even set up a fund called the African Liberation Trust Fund headed by the Federal Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) to appeal for money for that trust fund. The ANC's Sydney offices are located in the Trades Hall, Goulburn Street. One wonders whether the ANC is paying rent on those premises. The New South Wales Branch of the Australian Labor Party has given $1,000 to both SWAPO and the ANC in clear breach of the Federal Government's own laws on foreign aid and incursions. The South Australian Branch has given them $250 each also. As well, two ANC men have received training from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in film production techniques. They are being either financed or assisted by the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Federal Government, the ABC Staff Union and ABC management. The Department of Foreign Affairs has also been instructed to examine ways to fund ANC and SWAPO. These are communist groups backed from Moscow and have as their policy the violent overthrow of the South African Government and the installation of a one-party Marxist state. This was beautifully summed up by the words of Michael Davis, a Labor delegate from the Maroubra State Electorate Council, who said: We should not pretend that the ANC is about liberation when we know that communist revolution has never liberated anyone. The ANC has a history going back to 1912. The Communist Party in South Africa at that time began eying at an early stage the rise of the ANC. By 1936, with an overlap of membership between the Communist Party and the ANC, an intimate relationship had been cemented between these two groups. For example, J. B. Marks, a Communist Party member who became Secretary-General of the ANC and who was a student at the Lenin School in Moscow, died in Russia in 1972. The Kremlin gave him an official funeral. The Secretary-General of the Communist Party, Moses Kotane, became the next Secretary-General of the ANC. Later, in 1943 Abraham Fischer, South Africa's most senior communist, drafted a new constitution for the ANC. With the clampdown on the Communist Party that occurred in the ensuing years they were forced to take a lower profile. In the 1960s they decided to promote the ANC as the spearhead of the revolutionary liberation movement. Soon after Nelson Mandela emerged as its leader. The Communist Party and the ANC began a joint campaign of sabotage and terrorism in South Africa until they were raided in 1963. Mandela was arrested and gaoled for his part in a revealed plot to overthrow the Government by armed revolution. Terrorist acts then fell away sharply until the late 1970s. However, with millions of dollars being poured into the ANC from the United Nations, and with base facilities being provided in nearby countries such as Mozambique, acts of ANC terrorism rose again. In the 1980s there emerged a switch of policy from sabotaging state installations to attacking civilians. The murder of innocent men, women, children and babies by the ANC is presided over by the executive council of that body. Of the 30 members of the executive, no fewer than 23 are members or active supporters of the South African Communist Party. Their attacks are aimed largely at blacks who work within the system with the aim of intimidating the population into submission. Moderate blacks are being brutally murdered in their hundreds, by radical blacks. Black businesses are being destroyed in their thousands. Black policemen are particular targets. Several hundred schools and a number of health clinics have also been destroyed-all serving the black community. Individuals are killed by necklacing, a process whereby a tyre is jammed over the body and arms and set alight. ANC spokesman Alosi Moloi justified this in October 1985 by saying: You have to eliminate one to save hundreds of others. His colleague, Tim Ngubane, also said: We want to make the death of a collaborator so grotesque that people will never think of it. Even in April this year Winnie Mandela said: . . . with our boxes of matches and our necklaces we shall liberate this country. Though we all want to see an end to apartheid, no reasonable Australian would support these deliberate and despicable policies of brutality. I call on this Government not only to stop assisting such terrorism but also to expel the ANC and SWAPO organisations from Australia. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(10.29) —I must say what a delight it is to follow the sensitive and compassionate contribution by the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb), whose obsession with people with black skin is well known to all honourable members. Unlike the honourable member, I raise a matter of concern to people in my electorate. I do not embark upon some ideological hobby-horse for the benefit of the News Weekly. The matter that I seek to raise concerns the conditions of my constituents in the East Hills naval estate in the electorate of Hughes. I begin by complimenting the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) on the outstanding contribution he has already made to the well-being of service families. As my fellow Australian Labor Party members will know, including the honourable members for Brand (Ms Fatin) and for Herbert (Mr Lindsay), the Minister for Defence has made some outstanding reforms that have drastically improved the standard of living of service families. The initiative that the Minister took to create the Hamilton report, and the action that he has further taken to implement those recommendations, will literally transform service life in this country. When I became the member for Hughes, I confessed to not knowing a lot about the conditions that service families experienced, but I have come to regard them as having been the subject of years of neglect by previous governments. It is a tragedy that those who purport to believe in an efficient and well-organised defence force for this country have failed so dramatically in past years to do anything for the conditions of service personnel. The matter that I seek to raise concerns an aberration and a forgotten outpost of service families in Australia, the East Hills naval estate to which I have already referred. It can truly be called the forgotten residential outpost of the Royal Australian Navy. During a recent visit to that estate, I met with the spouses of Navy personnel and found an extremely distressing low level of morale and many social problems which, regrettably, the Navy has yet to confront. I draw the attention of the House to some of those problems. First, there is a serious lack of transport, with only three bus services during the whole day. There is some possibility of a morning school bus, but the mothers informed me that they cannot take prams on that bus. That is a major cause for concern. There is a dilapidated footbridge across the Georges River, which is their only convenient access to the East Hills railway station. That bridge is so dilapidated as to be positively dangerous to the service families and particularly to children. There are no lights on that bridge, which, as I have indicated, forms a vital link to the only available railway station. There is such a lack of shopping facilities that the local residents are unable to go to any corner shop or get to any shop without a long period of travel. There is a misleading road sign on Heathcote Road, which results in unnecessary traffic going to that estate and causing a hazard to local families. There is a great deal of uncertainty in the local community as to who is responsible for their plight. The residents do not know who owns the land. I would draw the attention of the Minister for Defence to the need to give some back-up to those local residents. There is a need for extensive tree-planting, a post box, a public phone and a move by the Minister and the Navy to build a real sense of community identity for this forgotten residential outpost. Importantly, I draw the attention of the House to the Voyager Park in the estate, which is a memorial to the men who tragically lost their lives on the Voyager. That park is in a very run-down and dilapidated condition and does not reflect well upon the Navy in its important 75th anniversary year. I draw the attention of the Minister to these important concerns of my constituents. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(10.34) —Earlier today, the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) made a big song and dance about the level of cross-subsidy that Telecom Australia gives to rural people in the form of telephone services. I was very interested to listen to the Minister, because I happen to be a member of the sub-committee of the Standing Committee on Expenditure, along with the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons), who chairs that sub-committee. During our deliberations, we have looked at some length at the level of cross-subsidy between metropolitan and rural subscribers to Telecom. We have had some difficulty in obtaining precise figures. That is why I was interested to hear the Minister quoting exact figures today. He talked about $531 per year per service for the constituents of the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), and talked about $1,083 per service in relation to the electorate of the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron). I think that is what one calls four significant figures in mathematical language. That sort of precision is very interesting, because it appears from the transcripts of the Expenditure Committee hearing held on 29 May-of course, they are public documents-that we were looking at the cross-subsidy which, at that stage, Telecom was trying to claim was $492m. It is interesting to note from the Press release dated 24 August, to which the Minister referred today, that the cross-subsidy for 1984-85 has dropped to $459m. I am slightly curious to know why it is dropping. Perhaps it indicates that people in the country are using the telephone more than they used to and more proportionately than their city counterparts. The Expenditure Committee has been looking at this matter in some detail. The transcript of that hearing shows that Mr Pitt, the Financial Studies and Development Manager of Telecom, when queried about the level of cross-subsidy, had some interesting things to say. In part, he said: Our best estimate of the cross-subsidy metropolitan to country in 1984-85 was of the order of $400m to $500m. That is very different from the figure quoted by the Minister for Communications. Mr McGauran —Who is telling the truth? Mr HAWKER —I do not know who is telling the truth, but I am trying to point out that one of the senior members of Telecom has admitted that the figure is of the order of $400m to $500m. With someone in Telecom as vague as that, it is very interesting to hear the Minister trying to provide precise figures. It is interesting to note that the chairman of the sub-committee, who happens to be present tonight, also quoted from Mr Ergas, who is an expert on telecommunications and who came out from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to look at Telecom. He had this to say on how to work out the cross-subsidy: It is nonetheless extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, to rigorously determine the extent of the cross-subsidisation inherent in a given structure of telecommunication prices. I raise this point not because I question whether there is a cross-subsidy-obviously there is-but because the Minister gave some precise figures in the chamber today. He has made some claims that these precise figures show that there is a level of cross-subsidy in certain country electorates. However, when we look at what the Expenditure Committee found, we see that these figures are very vague. They are not precise. A figure of the order of $400m to $500m is very different from the precise figure of $459m quoted by the Minister-a figure which the previous year seemed to be a lot higher, at $492m. I suspect that the pressure which the Expenditure Committee has put on Telecom forced it to reduce the cross-subsidy figure that it had been quoting, but it is up to the Minister to be quite frank with members of this chamber and admit that it is a ball-park figure, that it is not precise and that a figure of the order of $400m to $500m is very different from $459m. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(10.39) —I rise in response to some of the comments made by my colleague on the Standing Committee on Expenditure, the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker), who mentioned my name as the sub-committee chairman for the inquiry relating to Telecom Australia. It was interesting to listen to some of the comments of the honourable member for Wannon tonight, because the essence of his contribution was not to deny that there was a cross-subsidy, but to say that the cross-subsidy was of the order of $400m to $500m. I think the figure that was mentioned today by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) in an answer in Question Time was $459m, which is very close to halfway between $400m and $500m. The important element in the whole debate about cross-subsidy-significantly and honestly, the honourable member for Wannon does not deny that there is a cross-subsidy-is that no member of this House would have the audacity to deny that a cross-subsidy exists within the national communications system operated by Telecom Australia. I shall remind the House of a couple of interesting points about the extent of the cross- subsidy. Perhaps it is worth reminding ourselves of those points in the context of the debate on privatisation. The area within one square mile of Sydney central business district accounts for 20 per cent of Telecom's total revenue Australia-wide. If one extrapolates such information to Melbourne and the other capital cities of Australia, I think it would be fair to say that some 50 to 60 per cent-perhaps even more-of Telecom's total revenue comes from that area. In other words, we can understand why some elements within our society are very keen to tap into the main trunk routes between Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne. Essentially, that is where the profits are. Who would want to build and operate a private communications system in the electorate of Wannon? Quite clearly, whoever did so would go broke. Who would want to operate a private telecommunications system in Dubbo? Quite clearly, whoever did so would also go broke. That is the important point about the whole cross-subsidy argument. Telecom provides a very fair system whereby people, wherever they live in Australia, get the benefit of the fact that a large percentage of our population is concentrated in very few urban centres. If we were able to draw a line between the cities of Brisbane and Adelaide, even including the State of Tasmania, that would account for 90 per cent of Australia's total population. It is significant that, within that relatively small area in a geographical sense, we have such a huge concentration of population. It is important to realise that, with such geographical information, Telecom, as the national communications system operator in Australia, has a responsibility to provide a communications system, a telephone system, to people, wherever they live. I admit-it is on the public record of the hearings of the Expenditure Committee-that the whole question of the methodology of the cross-subsidy is being addressed, as it should properly be addressed during such an important inquiry. If the honourable member persists with his claim that the cross-subsidy is of the order of $400m to $500m, I will accept an intermediate point of about $450m. Even if the honour- able member errs on the side of $400m, I do not think that what the Minister for Communications said today will be fundamentally different in terms of the total figures that are available to each of those areas nominated by the Minister today. If the honourable member for Wannon errs on the side of generosity, towards $500m, there will be a quite significant difference. I think that it is in the interests of everyone, especially those members who represent rural and provincial electorates of Australia, to argue very strongly for the principle of the cross-subsidy so that we are not threatened by some of the ideological nonsense that is talked about with privatisation. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.44) —On 17 September, I wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in the following terms: Dear Mr Hawke, The Hawke Socialist Government's Fringe Benefits Tax Legislation is not only grossly unjust-it is bad Law. It is vague, uncertain, contradictory and ambiguous. It is an absolute shambles. It is a legal jungle and an Accountant's nightmare. Some of the best business brains in Australia still cannot understand it months after it has been passed through the Parliament. It is unintelligible. Prime Minister, in recent weeks you, the Treasurer, and others have made a number of public statements seeking to clarify this incredible Legislation. There have been comments on possible amendments; correcting certain glaring anomalies; suggestions of administrative changes and gratuitous `on the spot' advice whenever the mood takes you. A classic example was the ad hoc-and ill-prepared-`advice' in the House yesterday by your Treasurer on the use of Log Books in Motor Vehicles. If the Treasurer of Australia demonstrably does not fully understand his own Legislation how can your Government demand that the citizens of Australia be compelled to comply with such a bad Law? I am advised that of the 100 Questions put to the Australian Taxation Office on your hotch-potch Fringe Benefits Tax Legislation at least 30 per cent of the Questions have not been properly answered at all. I am further advised that several leading Counsel and Tax Experts have described a significant proportion of the Answers as `absolutely useless'. Prime Minister, the right to disobey Objectionable Laws-and by so doing to challenge the same in the Courts-is constitutionally well recognised. The great Dicey held that `there are political limits on what parliament may impose on the people. If parliament chooses to pass a thoroughly unacceptable law, it can command obedience only by meeting resistance with massive forces'. Blackstone properly asserted `the right to rebel' while at the same time acknowledging the principle of the `sovereignty of parliament'. Thirteen years ago the distinguished C. P. Mills of the University of Sydney wrote in The Australian Law Journal that `Most of us today are conditioned to the idea of the ultimate supremacy of the parliamentary will, and so it seems axiomatic to us that the law (whatever it decrees) must be obeyed, but it was not always so in the English experience. The Great Charter of 1215 and the Bill of Rights of 1689 were products of revolt against what were then regarded as oppressive laws'. Mills also noted that the American colonists asserted their right to rebel, not only as a `natural' right, but also as `a right due to them as subjects of George III'. The learned author concluded his treatise `Wherever it is claimed that parliament has an absolute and limited right to legislate, such a claim by its very nature will give rise to another claim, that of the right to resist oppressive or unjust laws'. (47 A.L.J. 278-80.) With respect to your comments in the House yesterday, I remind you of your own public statements on the Law during the Vietnam Debate, and many of your comments on the Law and its application during your term as President of the ACTU. I am certain you will also recall the arguments put to the High Court of Australia in Thompson's Case, which you will find reported in 118 C.L.R. 488 and Giltinan's Case 45 A.L.J.R. 372. Whilst those challenging the National Service Laws in these cases were unsuccessful it is clear that the Court was not unaware of the deep divisions in public opinion, and further that many public utterances of then Federal Ministers denouncing the resistors as `rejecting the rule of law' were seen to be more than slightly hypocritical. Prime Minister, I was admitted to the Bar on 19 February 1962 and appointed Queens Counsel in January 1984. In 24 years in the Law and nearly 20 years in Parliaments-both State and Federal-I have never before advocated that citizens should not comply with the Law, and by so doing provoke a challenge to the said Law in the Courts. I maintain it is the fundamental right of any Australian to create a situation where an unjust, objectionable, uncertain and ambiguous Law can be tested, where it should be tested-in the Courts. Your Fringe Benefits Tax Legislation fits every one of the four adjectives I have just enunciated. I admit to you and the Attorney-General that I uttered the aforementioned views in an address I gave to a combined Liberal Party Branches Dinner in Melbourne on Thursday last, 11 September. I believe that my comments were fully justified-and I stand by them. If you think otherwise you may well consider it your duty to take advice as to whether you should charge me with inciting a breach of Commonwealth Law. I assure you that I will strenuously defend any proceedings which may be instituted against me in any court. Yours faithfully, HON. MICHAEL HODGMAN QC MP Federal Member for Denison I await a reply from this gutless wonder of a Prime Minister as to whether he will uphold the law, whether he will prosecute Bob Ansett, who will not pay the tax and whether he will prosecute me for an alleged breach of the law by inciting a breach of Commonwealth laws. This Prime Minister and this Treasurer (Mr Keating) know that this law is unjust and that no prosecution will succeed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(10.49) —Recently, while in the southern part of the Throsby electorate, I visited the Bomaderry ambulance station. The visit resulted from my Press release to the local media, which drew attention to the success of the Australia-wide campaign to reduce deaths on our roads. As honourable members will be aware, statistics released earlier this year by the Federal Office of Road Safety show that, while the number of cars has increased in the last decade, the number of fatalities has actually dropped. Statistics also reveal that Australia's road safety campaign compares more than favourably with similar campaigns in Europe. Following my Press release on road safety I was contacted by Mr Selwyn Watt, an ambulance officer at Huskisson in the Shoalhaven area. We discussed efforts to date to reduce the road toll, and Mr Watt, speaking from his experience as an ambulance officer, suggested possible ways in which fatalities could be further reduced. At my suggestion, Mr Watt then wrote to me, putting his ideas on paper. I arranged to meet with him and fellow ambulance officers to discuss the matter personally. All the ambulance officers, speaking from many years experience in attending road accidents, agreed that efforts to date to reduce the road toll had been highly effective. In particular, they applauded the introduction of seat belts, random breath testing, and the use of helmets by motor-bike riders and cyclists, especially children. They also applauded road safety campaigns conducted in recent years by the Federal Government. They then drew my attention to one particular cause of death and serious and permanent injury. From time to time, they said, they arrived at the scene of a road accident to find that a victim, being unconscious, had died not because of injuries sustained in the accident but because of asphyxiation. In many cases there were passers-by at the scene of the accident who, had they known, had only to tilt back the unconscious person's head to clear the airway, thus ensuring that the victim would continue to breathe properly. The ambulance officers also made the point that, even when the victim survived, partial asphyxiation had been known to cause irreparable brain damage. Drawing on his own experience, Mr Watt said that on one occasion he arrived at the scene of an accident to find several motorists already present. They were standing beside a young motor-cyclist who was dead. He had been knocked out when he fell from his motor-bike and, his head having dropped forward, he had died of asphyxiation. Subsequent examination established that his only other injury was a broken leg. The other ambulance officers were all able to give similar examples. They said that many lives could be saved if only passing motorists, who are almost always the first persons present at the scene of a motor accident, had some skills in basic first-aid. This, they suggested, could be ensured if new motor vehicle drivers licences were issued to only those persons who have attended a course in basic first-aid and obtained an appropriate certificate. The course would need to cover airway management and haemorrhage control, but need not entail cardiac-pulmonary arrest. The officers said the course would not need to be very lengthy, nor need it be very complicated. They further suggested that, in order to keep it as simple and practical as possible, they are strongly of the opinion that ambulance officers themselves should conduct such courses. Quite apart from saving lives in motor accidents, the recommended first aid course would result in many more people in our community having basic first-aid and life-saving skills, which would prove invaluable in the work place, at home and wherever people gather for recreation. Another suggestion put forward by the ambulance officers was that every motor vehicle should contain a first-aid kit, and that no vehicle should be passed for registration which did not contain such a kit. The kit, they further suggested, should be inspected and passed on an annual basis as part of the normal registration of motor vehicles. No doubt there will be those in the community who will oppose these recommendations. Some will say that they would represent an unnecessary infringement of the motorist's personal freedom. Others will argue that they will constitute yet another expense imposed upon the motoring public. Both these arguments, honourable members will recall, were used against the introduction of the compulsory use of seat belts, the compulsory wearing of safety helmets and random breath testing. Yet all three measures have done much to save lives and considerably reduce serious injury on our roads. They have also saved millions of dollars for Australian taxpayers in the form of reduced hospital care, and for the general public in the form of lower insurance premiums and, of course, for insurance companies themselves. I therefore endorse the recommendations put to me by the ambulance officers with whom I recently spoke and commend them to the House. Surely there are measures on which we can all agree, irrespective of the side of the House on which we may sit. I would hope that, following a reasonable period of public debate, which would necessarily involve State as well as Federal parliaments and departments, the recommendations I have received might be implemented without undue delay. I will certainly be discussing them with the Federal Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) and the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport Safety. Mr SMITH(Bass)(10.54) —My attention was drawn recently to an answer by the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) to a question on notice dated 17 September about air service arrangements. It concerns Qantas Airways Ltd. I would like to bring it to the attention of the House, because devaluation has had some benefits and Qantas and tourism may be seen to be benefiting by that. But waiting in the wings, so to speak, some negotiations need to take place with the United States of America on new air treaties. They are being renegotiated for the first time in many years. I am advised that there is some dispute between the Minister for Aviation and the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) as to who will actually undertake these vital negotiations. Mr Slipper —Who won? Mr SMITH —I do not think that it has been resolved yet. On the track record of the two Ministers, one would hope that the Minister for Aviation would be the one to have the stewardship of those negotiations. The importance of those negotiations is illustrated by the contribution that Qantas makes to the Australian economy. The interesting point about existing arrangements is that Qantas has only four entry points into the United States, whereas under the existing agreements the United States has many more entry points into Australia. It is quite clear-the Minister says this in the answer to that question, and I agree with him-that the existing arrangements are not fair and do not provide an equal opportunity. He says that we will be negotiating on the capacity of those routes and, more importantly, the route entitlements. We, for example, would like to be able to fly directly into Chicago. So the importance of those renegotiated treaties cannot be overestimated. It is quite clear from the statistics that foreign airlines historically are not good at bringing foreign tourists to Australia. Qantas now outcarries foreign airlines by three to one in bringing tourists into Australia. For example, last year Qantas brought 100,000 more Americans to Australia than all the United States airlines combined. The problems for Qantas lie in the very real possibility of capacity dumping by the United States airlines on the United States of America-Australia routes. The concern exists that the United States-Australia routes account for more than 30 per cent of Qantas's entire traffic, yet the routes account for only 2 per cent of the traffic for the United States airlines, primarily Continental Airlines and United Air Lines. Qantas must be allowed to compete on an equal footing. For this reason, in our recent aviation policy we have said that we will permit interlining by Qantas on domestic airline routes. Qantas must be permitted to utilise currently wasted capacity which exists because Qantas cannot fly domestic passengers on the domestic component of international routes. Qantas is currently Australia's only major export industry without access to any part of a domestic industry. Qantas is also a major export earner for Australia and it operates in an almost totally deregulated market against 31 major competitors. We should examine the international aviation economy and the valuable part played by Qantas in helping Australia overcome its present disastrous trade imbalance-and we all recognise that from both sides of the House. On a global scale, the aviation industry produces more economic activity than anything else. The total annual international airline revenue is $180 billion. Added to this is an annual tourism revenue of a further $100 billion. The international airline market is worth around $5 billion to Australia. While Qantas has a 43 per cent market share, the total market is still just 1.5 per cent of the total world market. Qantas believes that it is feasible to double this to 3 per cent of the total market by the end of the decade. So these negotiations are absolutely vital for this country to secure rights for Qantas to make sure that it can meet that projection, because if we do not do that we are cutting our own throats and we are giving to other operators the opportunity to earn income for their countries that we badly need here at this time. The increased growth would mean that a further $1 billion would be added to Qantas's existing $1.3 billion overseas earnings. Qantas's total contribution to the Australian economy is already about $4 billion. In terms of export earnings, Qantas ranks only behind coal, iron ore, wheat and wool. That should give honourable members some idea of the significance of its activities. It has had some difficulties with devaluation, labour costs, the size of the company, geography and foreign government subsidies to airlines, all of which have affected it. Cargo is another area that needs to be looked at, and that would involve, of course, the Department of Trade. I go back to my very first point. There is real concern that the renegotiation of these treaties, which are absolutely vital to our foreign earning capacity, may get bogged down in the bureaucratic argument between the Minister for Aviation and the Minister for Trade, and we just cannot afford to let that happen. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(10.59) —The people of Australia are demanding to know why this Government supports terrorist activities and terrorist officers in this country. Why is it that this Government permits the African National Congress, the Palestine Liberation Organisation and the South West African People's Organisation to exist in this country to subvert the lawful Government of South Africa and lawful governments in the Middle East? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 18 September 1986: Proclamation by His Excellency the Governor-General fixing the date on which the following sections of Acts shall come into operation-Crimes Act 1914 amendment made by the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 1) 1986-1 October 1986. Treaties-Text of- Which have been signed by Australia and which require further treaty action by Australia before the treaty can enter into force- (1) Agreement between Australia and the Republic of Austria for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Incomes signed at Vienna on 8 July 1986. (2) Second Protocol Amending the Agreement between Australia and the Kingdom of the Netherlands for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income with Protocol signed at Canberra on 30 June 1986. Which have been signed for and ratified by Australia- (3) Agreement on Medical Treatment between the Government of Australia and the Government of New Zealand signed at Rotorua on 2 April 1986. Instruments of ratifications were exchanged on 27 June 1986. The Agreement entered into force on 1 July 1986. (4) Agreement on the CAB International done at London on 20 September 1985 signed for Australia on 8 July 1986 and ratified by Australia on 31 July 1986. The Agreement is not yet in force. To which Australia has become a party by signature- (5) Exchange of Letters at Rome on 4 March 1986 and Canberra on 8 May 1986 constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) concerning the extension of Australian participation in the MFO. The Agreement entered into force retroactively on 25 April 1984. (6) Exchange of letters at Canberra on 28 February 1986 constituting an Agreement to amend the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to provide for the Establishment and Operation in Australia of a Large Optical Telescope. The Agreement entered into force on 28 February 1986. (7) Agreement on Health Services between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, signed at London on 21 July 1986. (8) Exchange of Notes at Canberra on 21 March 1986 constituting an Agreement amending the Agreement between Australia and Japan relating to Air Services. The Agreement entered into force on 21 March 1986. (9) Agreement between the Government of Australia and International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and International Development Association for the Cofinancing of Development Projects, signed at Washington on 2 June 1986. The Agreement entered into force on 2 June 1986. (10) Exchange of Notes at Canberra on 26 February and 20 August 1986 constituting an Agreement to amend the Subsidiary Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Korea concerning Squid Jigging. The Agreement entered into force on 21 January 1986 in accordance with the terms of the notes. (11) Exchange of Notes at Vancouver on 7 August 1986 between Australia and Canada constituting an Agreement for Sharing Consular Services Abroad. The Agreement entered into force on 7 August 1986. Which Australia has accepted or to which Australia has acceded- (12) Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, opened for signature at New York on 14 January 1975, acceded to by Australia on 11 March 1986. The Convention entered into force for Australia on 11 March 1986. (13) Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic, done at London on 9 April 1965 acceded to by Australia on 28 April 1986. The Convention entered into force for Australia on 27 June 1986. (14) Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Atomic Energy Agency, done at Vienna on 1 July 1958 accepted by Australia on 9 May 1986. The Agreement entered into force for Australia on 9 May 1986. (15) Convention on the Recognition of Studies, Diplomas and Degrees concerning Higher Education in the Europe Region, done at Paris on 21 December 1979, acceded to by Australia on 6 August 1986. The Convention entered into force for Australia on 5 September 1986. (16) Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 5 December 1979, acceded to by Australia on 7 July 1986. The Agreement entered into force for Australia on 6 August 1986. (17) Wheat Trade Convention, done at London on 14 March 1986 acceded to by Australia on 27 June 1986. The Convention entered into force on 1 July 1986.