Friday, 19 September 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. (Budget Debate) Debate resumed from 18 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 per cent; (e) a wage 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'. Ms MAYER(Chisholm)(10.01) —Last night, when the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1986-87 was interrupted, I was speaking about the provision that the Government has made in this Budget of a $250 ceiling for the pharmaceutical expenses of those people who are chronically ill or of any family or person who requires a great many medicines. It has been drawn to the attention of every member of the Government that many people who are not necessarily pensioners have some difficulty in paying for their medicines if they have chronic conditions. People who suffer from diabetes particularly were in a very poor position because, if they had to take insulin intravenously or intramuscularly, they had to pay for their syringes. I am glad that we have taken notice of the difficulties encountered by those people. Even though this Budget had to be very tight, we have recognised that need and made the provision of syringes for diabetics free. I am sure that a great many people in the community will save many hundreds of dollars as a consequence. I have received letters from my constituents which demonstrates clearly that some people will save $400, $500 and up to as much as $1,000 a year because of the $250 limit on payment for drugs. The morning after the Budget was presented, I was very disappointed to hear one of Melbourne's most popular radio journalists discussing this on his talk-back program, informing his listeners of what he understood to be the facts and getting the whole thing completely wrong. When people can and should inform themselves of the facts-that journalist was in the House for the presentation of the Budget and had every opportunity to get the facts right-it is a pity that people should be careless enough to misinform their listening public, upon whom they depend for their jobs. I hope that his listeners were not caused unnecessary anxiety and that they were not among those who were misinformed by their doctors. It has also been drawn to my attention that doctors were writing many prescriptions so that people could stockpile their drugs before 1 November when this new scheme comes into operation. That would greatly disadvantage any of their patients who are chronically ill, and I sincerely hope that those reports are wrong. If they are right, I hope that the doctors concerned will take a more sensible attitude to the well-being of their patients. Another item in the Budget which I find especially useful is the provision of 3,000 occasional child care places. The ability of parents, particularly women at home, to have reliable quality care for their children on an occasional basis is very important. No one, except those women who have full time care of young children, can understand how important it is to be able to use occasional child care places if they need to visit the doctor or the dentist or if they need to have some time without their young children to do the shopping for the household. The 24-hour care of children can become extremely difficult if a parent is not able to have some time off from that constant care by having his or her children in another appropriate form of care. I think that the provision of those child care places is a step towards recognising the enormous responsibility that mothers particularly take on in the care of young children. It is a further step on the way towards creating the 20,000 new child care places between August 1985 and June 1988 that we promised. In all, the number of child care places funded by the Commonwealth Government will have increased from 37,000 in June 1982 to 80,000 in June 1988-a very considerable input to the ability of parents, and women particularly, to know that when they are unable to provide full time supervision for their children, the children will be cared for at the highest standard. While I am on this subject I would like to draw the attention of the House to the Women's Budget Program, tabled by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) immediately after the Budget, which contains information about every part of the Budget and the programs and departments with which it deals. This publication, which is tabled annually in the Parliament after the Budget, is designed to provide Australian women with a comprehensive volume of information for their use. Of particular interest in the 1986-87 volume is the description of the new maintenance arrangements which are to be put in place to change the way in which child maintenance payments are handled. It has been a continuing problem that when parents separate and maintenance is awarded to the custodial parent, the non-custodial parent frequently does not pay the maintenance and frequently cannot be found. These new child maintenance payment arrangements will be handled in such a way that the friction and emotion that are caused by failure to pay maintenance will be avoided, at first hand at any rate. The Budget announcement of this arrangement is fully explained in the Women's Budget Program, and I would recommend it to women who have any interest at all in the government of their country, and I believe that is every woman in Australia. Publication of this program is a result of very considerable discussion and consultation with women throughout the country. It is an initiative of this Government which has proven to be very useful and has been widely accepted by Australian women whose interests-I say this particularly for some honourable members on the other side of this House-include not just those connected with the family but a whole range of interests of Australian people. The comparison between the first edition of the Women's Budget Program and this, the third edition, gives a very clear picture of the progress made by this Government in identifying and providing for the needs and interests of Australian women, whatever their background, activities or values. I would like now to address a Budget item about which there has been some protest and concern, and I understand that concern. That is the imposition of a fee to assist in covering the costs of administering student enrolments and their progress through higher education courses. A number of interesting attitudes have been expressed about this. We have had the tried and tired thin end of the wedge arguments which get trotted out whenever this Government does something a little different. The free education argument-education is meant to be free and we are told it is free-and a number of very genuine personal problems have been canvassed and will certainly be taken up. The fact is, however, that free education is not and never has been a reality, as every parent who has bought books, uniforms and equipment and paid material fees knows. Virtually every higher education student has paid and will continue to pay union fees covering many non-tuition provisions. When we consider that the cheapest university course costs $6,000 annually for tuition-and I might say that the dearer ones cost up to $18,000 annually-some interesting parallels can be drawn between the scale of the fee of $250 and the benefit that is provided. Given that a basic undergraduate degree costs $18,000 over three years in tuition costs, consider being offered a new Commodore or Falcon for a total cost of $750 plus registration and third party fees. It is a bargain that few of us would knock back. To take the example a bit further, the new car-the $18,000 worth which is offered for $750-would be worth much less at the end of three years. In contrast, at the end of three years of higher education the recipient has an appreciating asset that provides a basis for future progress through life. If the student enrols in one of the more expensive courses-the $12,000 ones, for example-for the same annual cost of $250, there is tuition of the value of a top of the range vehicle of the classier variety. There is no doubt that higher education confers a national and personal benefit that is far higher than that of a mere car, and the achievement of a degree involves a great deal of personal effort and dedication to a goal. It is for these reasons that I applaud the Government's decision to create 3,000 new higher education places and to spread administration costs rather than deprive the extra 3,000 students of the places that they need, particularly as a third of all students who are recipients of education allowances or receiving certain kinds of pensions will be compensated for the fee. There are many other Budget items of considerable interest-for example, the continuing support of conservation groups and funding for the rainforest study, which I am sure is great news for everyone who is interested in the conservation and preservation areas. There has been an enormous improvement made in income support for secondary students and there are a great many other items into which I do not have time to go now. In putting the Budget together, especially when we consider the extraordinary economic constraints and concerns that lay behind its assembly, the Government has demonstrated clearly that it is able to understand and make provision for the interests and concerns of a wide range of people without denying anyone who is in great need of the extra income that he might need. I applaud the Budget. I think that it is brilliantly designed and I am proud to be part of a government which will bring it down. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(10.12) —The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has drawn an analogy between our present economic predicament and the crisis of World War II. He has done that to wrap himself in the mantle of statesmanship and to exploit the honoured place in our nation's history that is held by wartime Prime Minister, John Curtin. Yet only the shallowest reading of history allows Curtin's memory to be invoked in defence of vested interests. Lloyd Ross, Curtin's biographer, made it clear that when the crunch came in World War II, Curtin was always prepared to put the nation's needs above his own convictions and the interests and prejudices of the Labor movement. The current Prime Minister wraps himself in the mantle of statesmanship to preserve certain vested interests and the electoral prospects of the Australian Labor Party and not to galvanise the country into meeting economic and social challenges. I put to the House that while his analogy to war may be apt, his choice of a Prime Minister for comparative purposes is not. I would have commended to the Prime Minister the words of David Lloyd George when talking about Neville Chamberlain. He said: He has appealed for sacrifice . . . I say solemnly that the Prime Minister should give an example of sacrifice, because there is nothing that can contribute more to victory in this war than that he should sacrifice the seals of office. That is the advice that the Prime Minister should be taking now. Mr White —Or have them taken away from him. Mr ROCHER —He will have them taken away from him, but perhaps we could enhance recovery if the Prime Minister made the pre-emptive move that I have just suggested. Instead of recognising the very real level of community understanding that exists about the seriousness of our current economic position; instead of grasping the opportunity to tackle the key structural problems that confront our nation and its economy; and rather than making the hard decisions now in order to secure a better future for all Australians in the longer term, the Government has served up a Budget and a series of Appropriation Bills that would do great credit to a banana republic. In doing so, the Government has squandered what I believe to be its last chance to foster genuine progress. Yet this series of events should not greatly surprise anyone. This Administration, in its three years in office, has developed a well-deserved reputation for economic incompetence which is at least as formidable and frightening as that established by the Prime Minister while he was President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Mr Slipper —They are hopeless. Mr ROCHER —That is right. I cannot think of a better word. The only area in which this Government has had much success is in the field of media management. For the better part of three years it succeeded in getting the majority of the national media to accept the Hawke Government-ACTU line that the accord and all that went with it was a sure-fire tonic for national revival. All too often insult was added to injury by the suggestion that it was a tonic that tasted a lot like champagne. More seriously, the Opposition parties' carefully argued critiques of the Government's economic policies have been largely ignored in favour of the increasingly ridiculous reassurances by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) that all was well under their stewardship. The Treasurer, interviewed on the Sunday program on 2 March this year, confidently asserted that `the economy has been doing very well'. Speaking in the House on 11 March, he said: The fact is that the policy mix at the moment is entirely and appropriately balanced. On 25 March he said: The fact is that the Government's policy settings this year have been totally correct. Addressing a conference on equity financing on 3 April, he stated: We are convinced that the policy mix which has underpinned our achievements-particularly the policy of the prices and incomes accord and our overall approach to fiscal and monetary policy-are right for Australia. Yet in May, he was reported in the Press-it has had wide publicity-as having said: We must let Australians know truthfully, honestly, earnestly, just what sort of an international hole Australia is in. Why the dramatic change in such a short space of time? The Prime Minister, in his address to the nation earlier this year, dragged out the old excuse that Australia was an innocent victim of extraneous forces. This fallacious argument depends on some key assumptions: First, that the Australian economy prior to the current account crisis had been performing well; second, that the economic growth achieved over the last three years was properly based; and, third, that the large current account deficits were an unexpected development. That begs the question: Did our terms of trade problem appear as if by magic? Plainly, it did not. In statement No. 2, Budget Paper No. 1, of last year's Budget, presented in August last year, the Treasury predicted: A marked deterioration in the terms of trade is expected, reflecting primarily the relative weakness of world prices for our commodity based exports. The Australian Financial Review summed it up on 12 June this year when it stated: The writing has been on the wall for a very long time regarding our extreme vulnerability to fluctuations in the prices we receive for key exports. That was well known. It was apparent to the Government, the public and serious commentators in the media. But the Treasurer and the Prime Minister continued to peddle the line of which I gave examples a moment ago. As a consequence-and I have mentioned this on another occasion-given the forecast of a $100 billion foreign debt at the end of this financial year, that is, in June next year, we will have seen foreign indebtedness, under the four years of this Government, rise by $65 billion. The implications of that are enormous. Mr White —How long? Mr ROCHER —In just four full years of the Hawke Government. Because it is foreign debt, it might be appropriate to express it in United States dollars terms. If one does-- Mr Slipper —Real dollars. Mr ROCHER —Yes, not funny dollars, not brass razoos. In United States dollars it will be in effect $138 billion. Let me say that that forecast as at 30 June next year is very conservative, if one believes some other commentators. A $100 billion deficit next year represents 35 to 40 per cent of our gross domestic product. Madam Speaker, because of time constraints, at this stage I seek leave to incorporate a table in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT BUDGET OUTLAYS (SM) PUBLIC DEBT INTEREST 1976-7 1977-8 1978-9 1979-80 1980-1 1981-2 1982-3 1983-4 1984-5 1985-6 1986-7 1987-8 Total Public Debt Interest ... 1,411 1,649 1,971 2,223 2,561 2,881 3,378 4,330 5,656 7,053 7,514 7,691 Total Outlays ... 24,023 26,664 28,911 31,444 35,994 41,188 48,792 56,430 63,712 69,917 74,764 80,150 Public Debt Interest as percentage of Total Outlays ... 5.9 6.2 6.8 7.1 7.1 7.0 6.9 7.7 8.9 10.1 10.0 SOURCE: Budget Papers 1985-6 and Department of Finance Forward Estimates Report of Budget Outlays and Staffing 1986-8. Mr ROCHER —I thank the House. As a consequence of the actions and mistakes of the Hawke Government our dollar had plummetted. I do not plan to go into that, again because of time constraints. But some of the problems are highlighted in the area of commercial interest rates. Although commercial interest rates have eased somewhat from the all-time record highs reached earlier this year, business and consumer interest rates remain very high by historical, relative or any other standards. The prime rate for big business is currently around 18 per cent, compared with 14 per cent at the time of the last election in 1984. Savings bank home loan interest rates are currently 15.5 per cent, the highest figure ever, compared with 11.5 per cent at the time of the last election. The small overdraft interest rate is around 19 per cent, compared with 14 per cent at the time of the last election. Credit card interest rates, including Bankcard, are currently up to 22 per cent, the highest figure ever. Australia's interest rates are well above those of our major trading partners. This, of course, increases the cost of business, worsens our international competitiveness and contributes to our balance of payments difficulties. Tax revenue in real terms of course, continues to escalate. I have dealt with that matter on another occasion. Also, labour costs are presenting problems. They manifest themselves as a result of the things I have been talking about. Under the accord, labour costs in Australia have risen faster than those of any of our major trading partners. The growth in average weekly earnings in the year to May 1985 was 3.2 per cent, and over the year to May 1986 it rose to 6.6 per cent. The most recent data on annual earnings growth in other countries shows the following figures which can be used as a comparison. The equivalent figure in Italy over recent times is 5 per cent; in the United States of America it is 2.4 per cent; in Japan it is 2.2 per cent; in France it is 4.8 per cent; in West Germany it is 3.3 per cent; and in Canada it is 2.6 per cent. So these are the effects of the insane policies that I have been talking about. If I had the time to look at employment, I would also point to some of the things that are happening, or which are in prospect in that area. In relation to employment, we should remember the Prime Minister's promise of the 100,000 jobs which would follow as a natural consequence of the devaluation of the Australian dollar. That is simply another promise that has not materialised. Because of time restrictions, I will leave it at that. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(10.24) —This was a particularly difficult Budget to prepare. For the last couple of years the terms of trade have been strongly against Australia. International crude oil prices, for example, fell by 50 per cent in the first half of 1986 and non-oil commodity prices fell by around 27 per cent between mid-1984 and mid-1986. Overall, Australia's terms of trade declined sharply by about 10 per cent in 1985-86, compared with a long term average rate of decline of about one per cent a year. This has taken Australia's terms of trade to about 10 per cent below their previous post-war low point. The inevitable result of this deterioration in the terms of trade has been a sharp increase in the current account deficit to just under $14 billion in 1985-86. This means that we as a nation are spending about 6 per cent more than we are earning. The Government therefore had no option but to frame a budget which would contribute to the reduction of imports, because that is essential to reduction of the current account deficit and so to slowing the rate of growth of our overseas debts. It is worth remembering that Australia's borrowings just last year of about $14 billion will cost well over $1 billion to service, which is about half a per cent of our national income. That means that our current account deficit has increased by over $1 billion just to service the debt accumulated just last year, which itself adds to the problem. The extent of our need to borrow overseas has to be reduced quickly and therefore the Budget had to be restrained. It is also important to remember that, while the immediate step towards easing the problem is to reduce imports, the longer term solution requires increasing the value of our exports. This is likely to occur to some extent as commodity prices recover, but we must also diversify our exports into higher value manufactured goods and services. This requires new investment and increasing productivity within Australia. Both private and public investment have to be increased. This Budget involved a balancing act between the need to restrain imports and the need to prepare for the expansion of exports through improving Australia's productive base. However, framing the Budget was made even more complex by the fact that there are still over 600,000 unemployed people. The effectiveness of the Government's policies in reducing unemployment during the last 3 1/2 years has been remarkable, with about 650,000 new jobs being created and a significant fall in unemployment occurring. However, despite that remarkably rapid growth in employment the extent of unemployment remains serious. Even though unemployment has received less publicity recently, it remains a chronic crisis causing widespread poverty, social breakdown and loss of personal dignity as well as severe costs to the whole community. Inflation too remains a concern as the effects of the devaluation of the last 18 months have again driven up consumer prices. The consumer price index will fall back as the consequences of devaluation subside, but even when it is back to 6 or 7 per cent it is likely to be more than double the rates of our major trading partners. The Government had to attempt to find a strategy that aimed not only to reduce the size of the current account deficit this year but also to develop the economy in ways which would permanently increase the value of exports, minimise the effect of the rate of economic growth and employment growth and keep bearing down on the rate of inflation. Such a strategy was obviously extremely hard to find. The central features of such a strategy are already in place. The most important is the major devaluation which has occurred during the last 18 months. The value of the dollar has declined by about 40 per cent in terms of the trade weighted index during that period, and that is an entirely appropriate response. It is the most important policy which the Government could have adopted to correct the imbalances, contrary to what the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) said. The second stage of the prices and incomes accord, which was negotiated last year, has also reduced relative labour costs. Australian labour costs are now at or below the levels they were in the late 1960s and are well below those of our major competitors. This remarkable fall means that Australian business now has a major competitive advantage. The effect of the devaluation and the fall in labour costs will certainly be to increase the volume of exports as purchasers overseas respond to the lower prices of Australian-produced goods and services and Australian consumers respond to the higher prices of imports. There was some concern earlier this year that the lags in responding to the devaluation and decline in labour costs were very long, and there was doubt about the efficacy of the depreciation. But there is now growing evidence that export and import volumes are responding to the new situation. The strength of that response will certainly increase as investors and consumers grow to recognise that the changed situation will last a long time and that therefore it is worth investing in Australia because of the increased demand for Australian-made goods, both here and overseas. Unfortunately, the devaluation which occurred in June-July this year means that another round of wage discounting is essential. The Government has announced that it will be seeking a further 2 per cent discounting of wages in the next national wage case. This policy has been forced on the Government by the decline in the terms of trade, the worsening of the current account and the subsequent devaluation. Incomes must adjust to the new situation. Most people will recognise that requirement. The important thing is that such restraint be shared throughout the community and not just by wage and salary earners. One of the most serious consequences of Australia's high current account deficit is that it increases our vulnerability to opinion in the rest of the would. With a floating exchange rate, that opinion can be expressed instantaneously. The Government had to frame a Budget which would satisfy the views of currency markets if a further decline in the dollar were to be avoided. The British Economist magazine described this situation colourfully. It editorialised on Budget eve that: Australia's living standards may be dictated by the reaction to Tuesday's Budget by about two dozen conservative young men on the rather junior desks at a few Wall Street and London banks. This is certainly a financial humiliation. To counteract it we must aim to strengthen the dollar and reduce its vulnerability. The recent active open market operations by the Reserve Bank of Australia are a significant step towards reducing the frequency and extent of fluctuations in the dollar. The statement by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) yesterday that he would like to see a floor put underneath the dollar is another step in that direction. The recent greater stability may well be a direct benefit. A subsidiary aim of policy must be to make the Australian dollar boring so that there is less encouragement for the herd instinct of a narrow market to force overshooting. Foreign currency markets are like sharks. When fed the policies they ask for they barely take time to swallow before they demand more. They want public spending decimated, welfare cut and public authorities privatised. They are quite happy, though, to see military expenditure increased and subsidies to industry maintained. This is simply an expression of exchange dealers' prejudices. There is no objective economic reason for their preferences. Yet they are difficult to resist while the dollar is weak and directionless. That is one reason why we must build up our productive base. One aspect of the Budget which causes concern is the continuing decline in the proportion of funds used for investment. Total capital outlays by the Commonwealth are down to 6.75 per cent of total expenditure. Those outlays include not only the Commonwealth's own capital works but also capital grants to the States. The proportion of Budget outlays spent on capital works has fallen from 19.4 per cent in 1975-76 to 6.75 per cent this year. That is, the proportion of investment in the Budget has fallen by two thirds during the last 11 years. Most of that collapse occurred in the latter half of the 1970s but the downward trend is still continuing. The Treasurer and the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) mentioned this in statement 2 of Budget Paper No. 1, on page 45. They note: The composition of public sector outlays and receipts may have become steadily less conducive to capital formation and economic growth. The problem is that at times of Budget restraint it is easier to delay new capital projects and maintenance of existing infrastructure than it is to reduce industry assistance or other recurrent expenditure. It is clear that the decline in Australia's terms of trade and the deterioration of the current account will impose a substantial constraint on the Australian economy during the next few years. Despite this, the importance of investment and maintenance to economic growth and social development require that these forms of expenditure be given a high priority in the coming years. Before concluding, I would like to comment on the effect of the Budget in the Australian Capital Territory. Given the necessity for national economic restraint, the Australian Capital Territory is relatively well served in the Budget. Real expenditure per person is increased by 2 per cent, which will significantly stimulate the local economy. There will be further strong growth of employment and unemployment is likely to continue to be low. The unemployment rate in the Australian Capital Territory is down to 3.6 per cent, less than half the national rate. This shows clearly the benefits to a community of strong public sector activity. There are significant improvements in services in the Budget for the Australian Capital Territory. For example, 109 new nursing positions are being created, 400 new government houses are to be built, 3,000 new homes sites will be developed, increased funds are being allocated for rent rebates, the hospice program will be professionalised and the William Slim Drive-Barton Highway intersection is to be reconstructed. These are all good outcomes and will improve services in Canberra. A couple of decisions are being widely questioned, but overall the Budget will make a substantial contribution to economic and social development in the Territory. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(10.37) —I rise to speak in this debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1986-87 with, I suppose, a sense of wonder at how you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and your colleagues who have occupied the Speaker's chair throughout this debate can sit there with equanimity and listen to the bleatings of the people on the Labor Government benches who continue-they have been doing it now since 1983-to trot out the tired old excuse that whatever has gone wrong is the fault of the Fraser-Anthony Government. That is all they can say. How long do we have to put up with this? How many years are they going to try to fool the Australian people? The Australian people are waking up to them. For all their boasting about the world's best Treasurer and for all the blowing of their own trumpets, like a town band, all this year's Budget is a window dressing Budget, a sort of Clayton's Budget. The Government has a $3.5 billion deficit. In the speculation before the Budget the pundits were saying: `It has to be at least a $4 billion deficit or, perhaps even better, a $3.5 billion deficit'. Lo and behold, what happened? Out of thin air a miraculous Budget deficit of $3.5 billion was produced. That was done to placate the international money market and to try to give the dollar a little kick along, a little boost. But what a fizzer! It took only 24 hours for the international money market to react and sort out this Budget for what it is. What Australia needs is a government with the guts, the fortitude to stand up and take the real decisions that will get this country back on the road. We need real expenditure cuts, not just more and more taxes. This Hawke Labor Government is taxing the people of Australia as they have never been taxed before. This Budget hits everybody in Australia. I say again that this Hawke Government is the highest taxing government Australia has ever had. We now have a projected deficit of $3.5 billion. If we compare that with the 1985-86 actual Budget deficit of $5.7 billion, we see that the figure is down. But it is down for only one reason: All Australians are paying more and more just to create a lower deficit for the Government. Labor's total Budget deficit since it came to office in 1983 is $23.95 billion. Compare that with the seven years of the Fraser-Anthony Government, whose total deficit was only $20.9 billion. What Australia needs is not high deficit budgets; we need balanced Budgets with no deficits. It can be done. Joh does it in Queensland. Only two weeks ago he brought in another balanced Budget, another Budget with no deficit-and Joh does it year after year. This is what we will be aiming to achieve as soon as possible after we get back into government, which will be at the next election. This Government's Budget has an 8 per cent inflation rate built into it right from the start. What will it be by the end of the year? The Government will continue to inhibit our competitiveness on world markets because of that inflation. Right from scratch wages are designed to go up by at least 6 per cent. All of these decisions have been based on assumptions, assumptions by the world's best Treasurer. He might have been the world's best Treasurer in some people's view, but now he is talking about a banana republic. I live in Coffs Harbour. We have a real banana republic there-the most successful tourism promotion this country has ever seen. I tell the Treasurer (Mr Keating) right here and now that if he likes I will make him chief justice of the banana republic. He does not know anything about law, but then he does not know anything about economics either. So I can make him chief justice. That would be very appropriate because he comes from the New South Wales Labor Party, and its members know all about the judicial system. Mr Peter Fisher —It would get him out of here, too. Mr NEHL —That would be a good thing, too. The Treasurer's assumptions saw the Australian dollar crash, sent interest rates through the roof and gave us an inflation rate much higher than those of our competitors. We have also ended up with the highest ever overseas debt. Remember that it took something like 82 years, from Federation, for Australia to build up a total overseas debt of about $22 billion. In only three years the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer have trebled that debt to $66 million. That is unbelievable. I do not know why the Australian people are not standing up and screaming their heads off. It can only be because they do not know about it. There are some good points in the Budget. I would be unreasonable not to acknowledge that. To allow artists, actors and our sportsmen and women to average their incomes is a very satisfactory step to take. I also applaud the restoration of tax exemption for Defence reservists' pay. But it is very hard to find anything else in this Budget that is favourable to anybody in Australia. Look at what the Government has done to pensioners. The six monthly consumer price index increases for pensions have been deferred in each case for six weeks. The promised income testing arrangement relaxation has been deferred until July 1987. That is an eight-month deferral. It has been estimated by the Combined Pensioners Association that the deferral of CPI increases will cost each pensioner $930 per annum. Mr Ian Robinson —Shame! Mr NEHL —It is shameful, indeed. Mr Ian Robinson —While their costs rise tremendously. Mr NEHL —As the honourable member says, costs are rising. That is what Labor has done for the pensioners of this country! It is a disgrace. What about primary producers? The Budget increased petrol and diesel costs by 3c per litre. Only the following week there was an extra 2c increase. That brings the increase in the price of fuel under the Hawke Labor Government to 14c over the last three years, an increase of 400 per cent in excise. Forty per cent of fuel used on farms is petrol, so while it is good that primary industry has gained some concession on excise for diesel used on the farm, like the rest of the community-small business, big business and the transport industry-40 per cent of farmers' fuel is still being paid for at the horrendous Hawke price. The dairying industry will be most adversely affected by the introduction of the 10 per cent sales tax on flavoured milk. Farm on-costs and input costs must rise because of increases in wages, inflation and fuel. The Government has introduced a 10 per cent increase in sales tax on alcoholic ciders and raised the sales tax on wine to 20 per cent. There has been a 10 per cent increase in sales tax on fruit juices and non-alcoholic wines and ciders. But I would like to dwell on flavoured milk. The dairy industry is absolutely aghast at the decision of the Hawke Government to apply a 10 per cent sales tax to flavoured milk in this Budget. Flavoured milks generally contain 95 per cent white milk. The balance is made up of flavourings and some sweeteners. They are obviously a consumer- popular means of milk consumption, especially by the young people of Australia. To meet the market in consumer preferences, those milks are offered in standard milk compositions and some low fat. The 10 per cent sales tax applied to ice cream is also an unjust imposition on consumers for a very basic food line that is found in nearly every Australian home. As well as doing the farmers in the eye, what the Government is really doing is hitting the kids by taxing fruit juices and flavoured milk. It realises in its despicable fashion that children cannot vote. Then there is what the Government is doing to other young Australians-young Australians who are prepared to work, to qualify themselves so that they can be productive in the community and so that they can pay taxes. Young Australians who are prepared to study now have to pay a $250 charge to cover administration costs. Call it what you like; it is still a fee. I believe that it might be reasonable in some circumstances, but I would like to say quite strongly that what we have got is a great disadvantage to country people. There has been a marginal increase in the family income level for use in the income test for the tertiary education assistance scheme. The family income for the test has been raised from $14,995 to $15,749. These days that is not a great deal of money. If a family happens to live in Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane and the kids can get to university or a college of advanced education by bus, that is fine, but if a family lives at Coffs Harbour, Port Macquarie or Kempsey-or Broken Hill, as the honourable member for Riverina-Darling (Mr Hicks) reminds me-they have to pay for the kids to go and live in one of these places. It costs the average Australian family at least $3,000 a year if it is not getting TEAS. The extra $250 could well be the straw that breaks their backs. Small business is a most important segment of the Australian economy. It is not the major employer, but there have been no meaningful concessions of any assistance to small business. All the taxation changes announced by the Government last year remain in place. Small business is still paying through the nose and is still overregulated. Small business will be hit hard by the capital gains tax and by the fringe benefits tax. Of course, we have had Labor's great fraud about the fringe benefits tax. The Government has said to everybody that it is not going to hit the workers, it is not going to touch the employees, it is only a tax on employers. What a load of nonsense! Anybody with any sense knows that wherever possible employers are passing the cost on to the employees. In many cases, because the employers just cannot afford the fringe benefit tax, they have been forced to withdraw some benefit given to their employees out of generosity and good feeling. That is what has been happening. The other reality is that where the cost of the fringe benefits tax can be passed on by big business and by government, it will add to inflation. Farmers and small business really cannot pass the cost on, but for all manufactured goods-the cornflakes on every breakfast table-there is going to be an increased cost of the fringe benefits tax. Small business used to be described as the three sevens-one worked from seven in the morning to seven at night seven days a week. Dairying is probably the only thing that is harder. I am getting the message from my constituents time and time again that where a husband and wife are working in a business, the wife often does the books. She gets the kids off to school in the morning, she has to run the house, look after her husband and her children, cook the meals and work in the business. It is not just seven to seven any more because now she is up until 10 o'clock every night filling in these wretched fringe benefit forms. It is a disgrace. It is a tax that has been devised by people who have not got a clue what the real world is all about. They have never had to make a profit, they have never had to go out and make a quid, they have never been reliant upon their own endeavours, as every small business man and woman has been in this country. Mr O'Neil —We are working more than seven to seven now, aren't we? Mr NEHL —We are now saying something that is true. My time is running out. I must make some brief reference to regional television. I note that according to this morning's Australian Financial Review, under the headline `Caucus group switches off Labor's TV plans', there has been a revolt among the Labor back benchers. I salute them for that; at least there are some people over there with common sense. The article states: Two ALP Caucus committees yesterday rejected the Federal Government's regional television restructuring plan, presenting the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, with his second revolt in a week. . . . . If the Caucus members have their way, they will overturn commitments Mr Hawke has given to the networks for more than a year on new regional television markets. This would leave regional stations in their existing stronger competitive position in comparison with the networks for much longer. That is a good thing because Labor has a history of looking after its little mates. Now it seems that the Prime Minister is hell-bent on looking after his big mates-the massive media networks. I think it is fair to ask: What sort of a deal has he done? What sort of a deal has been done between the Prime Minister and at least a couple of those major media networks? Are we on the brink of another scandal like Neville Wran's Lotto shovelling out the money? I conclude by saying, in summary, that in this Budget taxation receipts for the Commonwealth are expected to rise by 11.1 per cent, or $6.48 billion in the coming year. That is another $6.5 billion which is being ripped off the Australian people to pay for the profligacy of this Government. There will also be a 10.1 per cent increase in non-tax revenue to the Commonwealth-an increase of $584m over 1985-86. This represents an overall increase in revenues of $7 billion, or 11 per cent, over the previous financial year. That is $7 billion extra being fleeced from the Australian people to satisfy the delusions of grandeur of these posturing people on the other side. The sooner we get a change of government, the better off Australia will be. Mr GEAR(Canning)(10.53) —While listening to the previous speaker, the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl), I was reminded about the use of statistics being likened to the way a drunk uses a lamp post-more for support than for illumination. I am happy to support the Budget. I would like initially to look at an area of interest to the previous speaker. In many ways I believe it is symbolic of the difference between the Government and the Opposition. I refer, of course, to the assets test, which was alluded to by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) in his reply to the Budget Speech as being the only spending promise he said he would keep. The assets test has now been working for about two years and it is my contention that it is working and has led to the increased purchasing power of the pension. There is no doubt that a direct correlation exists between the value of the pension and the reintroduction of the assets test. When Mr Fraser was elected back in 1975, the pension stood at 24.7 per cent of average weekly earnings. In Mr Fraser's first Budget he got rid of the assets test altogether. The purchasing power of the pension declined from that time, until the Fraser-Howard Government was defeated in 1983, when the purchasing power of the pension had reduced from 24.7 per cent of average weekly earnings to 22.7 per cent. It was a shameful act. As the learned gentlemen on this side of the House would remember, the first Budget brought down by the Hawke Government reintroduced the assets test. It is illuminating now to look at what has happened since. Since we put the assets test back into the pensions system-we must remember that it was there from 1908 to 1976, so it is nothing new-the latest monthly economic and social indicators which are distributed to all honourable members and senators show that the purchasing power of the pension has now risen to 24 per cent of average weekly earnings. What we can draw from that is the fact that without an assets test, the purchasing power of the pension declined from 24.7 per cent of average weekly earnings to 22.7 per cent of average weekly earnings. There is a direct correlation between the value of the pension and the reintroduction of the assets test. The purchasing power of the pension has gone back up to 24 per cent of average weekly earnings and it is climbing. I intend to draw a graph of the movements of the pension related to the time and to the purchasing power related to average weekly earnings. I will distribute it widely in my electorate. It surprises many of us in this House to learn that the Leader of the Opposition embraced that policy because he never believed that the assets test should have been abolished. Those of us who spoke privately with the Leader of the Opposition, and who knew of his views, knew that he had some fiscal competence and that left to his own devices he would not have objected to our reintroducing the assets test. But we had a different Leader of the Opposition and he did not have the fiscal competence of the present Leader. One of the big disappointments about this Leader's reign is his acceptance of the assets test. Many of the problems facing Australia today can be relayed back to the protectionist policies of the past when the Liberal-Country Party was in power for about 30 years. The coalition built a wall of protection around Australia. At the time everybody was happy with that. The unions were happy, the workers kept their jobs; the bosses were happy, they did not have to compete with anybody and they kept their profits; and the Government was happy because no one was complaining. Everybody was happy. But that type of policy could only last for a short time. It was a very destructive policy. It not only allowed inefficiencies to creep into management in that management did not invest in plant, but also it is the cause of many of the problems we face today with featherbedding. Unions were able to get away with outrageous demands because there was no competition. What happened was that the bosses were quite happy to buckle under union demands because they knew they could pass on the cost to the consumer. There was no competition. As the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) rightly points out, we ended up with an industry that could be described only as a working museum. In the 1980s we are working with 1920s technology as a direct result of that policy. It did not surprise anybody that the overvalued dollar, which was maintained by the coalition instead of a wages policy, eventually caused manufacturing industry to collapse; and collapse it did in the early 1980s. If honourable members need proof of that they can look at any statistic related to employment to see the dramatic increase in the rise in unemployment for that period. The job of this Government is to get that industry out of the iron lung in which the coalition had it for 30 years. Industry needs to be in the free competitive world. One of the greatest things this Government has done is to float the dollar. It is something the Opposition would never do. We floated the dollar and allowed it to find a realistic level. We have an accord with the unions which has given Australia realistic wage levels. We have reformed the taxation system to promote productive investment rather than speculation. We had some of the greatest paper shufflers in the world making huge profits while the country was going down the gurgler. At least the taxation system and reforms we brought in will promote productive investment and put an end to speculation. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) has been an outstanding success with his industry policy. The steel industry is an example of one industry being saved, an industry which is near and dear to the heart of my colleague the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil). Senator Button has done a very good job there. It is not the only example I could give but I do not have time to give more. The Government is looking at removing inefficiencies in work practices. There are inefficiencies in management. We are getting rid of government regulations and the red tape that has built up since Federation. Our main job is to move from basically an agrarian and a mining economy to an industrial one. That is typical of Australia's past policies. The fact is that we have frittered away our chances and we are paying dearly for it now. I always maintain that the most effective protection in any economy is efficiency because if an industry is as efficient as, or more efficient than, its competitors it does not need protection. I would like to take up that point. We are looking at promoting industries that have potential for growth. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) has done a fine job in promoting Australia overseas to the extent that now tourism is one of our success stories. We had a briefing the other day from the Manager of Qantas Airways Ltd. I would like to say a few things about the way our international airline is responding to the climate brought in by this Government by the promotions overseas to bring visitors here. The tourism industry is the fastest growing industry in the world. It is relatively clean, pollution-free and it does not need protection, thank goodness. It can earn this country a lot of money. But Qantas is being constrained by policies or treaties which have been negotiated in the past. It was the same sort of mentality that gave us the protectionist policies and the treaties that Qantas has to fly under nowadays. I would hope that the Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris), who has done a wonderful job in his portfolio, is supported in his contention that we should not trade off airline seats for bags of wheat or iron ore. There are overseas airlines which wish to fly to Australia. Those countries include Mauritius, Korea, Sri Lanka, the Seychelles, Poland, Spain, Turkey and several South American countries. The only reason they want to fly to Australia is to fly Australians out. They do not want to bring tourists here-they want to fly Australians out and back again. We have to resist that. We have to make sure that where Qantas does fly in the international arena it does so on an equitable basis. In that regard it is particularly sad that the negotiations between Australia and America are bogged down because the Americans have had a sufficient advantage over Qantas in the passage of traffic between our two countries. We should also in our negotiations with the Koreans not trade our passenger seats for iron ore on the pretext that we have a trade imbalance in our favour. History should teach us that that imbalance does not last forever. We have to be a little more forward looking than governments have been in the past. I believe the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) made a very good speech in the House last night along these lines, and I congratulate him for that. In winding up my speech on the Budget, I point out that the Opposition is quite happy with the two-airline policy it introduced, the very restrictive one that has given us the inefficiencies and the high cost structure of airlines in Australia. It is quite happy to have a two-pension policy to get rid of the assets test so that rich people can once again put all their assets into non-income bearing deposits and have a pension as well. It wants a pension policy for the worker and a pension policy for the person who has access to investments. It wants a two-tax policy, one for the pay as you earn taxpayer, the poor mug who has always underwritten the cost of our taxation system, and it wants a taxation policy for all the bludgers, the guys who went out to restaurants for the evening meal and booked it up as business expenses and those who took advantages of the fringe benefits tax instead of cash as income and therefore skated around the taxation system. It is quite happy to have a two health policies: One for the rich who can opt out, and one for the poor who must stay in a policy which they do not have the money to get out of, even though it is an excellent policy. The coalition is going nowhere fast and as far as I am concerned it is where it deserves to be-in opposition. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(11.03) —We are debating the fourth Budget of the Hawke Labor Government. It is the last chance for Labor to save Australia and our economy from a catastrophic decline in the living standards of our people which will bring with it undoubted rising unemployment in a desperate effort to develop Australia's resources in a very competitive, international environment. It is an environment which will require this Government and this Parliament to develop a strategy which will save the Australian economy. It is extraordinary that we find in this debate member after member on the Government's side harking back to the problems this Government inherited in March 1983. Let us see the record for what it was. The Hawke Government had every opportunity to succeed. The economy was emerging from the recession caused by the wider world recession and a disastrous drought which, of course, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) tells everybody from on high that he broke. The Fraser Government's wage pause was in place and was obviously having an effect on inflation and keeping down our costs of production. Above all, the Labor Government had the undoubted goodwill of practically the entire Australian population, including the business community, whose decisions are vital to ensure that our resources are applied and that the right entrepreneurial decisions are made. Neither of those objectives can be achieved unless we have in place a government which is prepared to set the directions and the principles upon which the future course of this nation is to be set. We have a government which made deals with the trade union movement from day one-deals which effectively introduced the accord with its inflationary policies, especially in terms of wage indexation. That factor, above all else, has bogged down economic recovery for the past four years. This Budget is the last chance for the Labor Government to solve the problems it has created and has done so little to overcome the situation. This Budget is a failure. It has failed to cut government spending, it has failed to cut taxes, it has failed to put value back into the dollar and it has failed to generate an environment for greater investment opportunities. Therefore the Opposition can see no reason why we should support the Government's proposals. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) and his Prime Minister in the last year have been deliberately deluding the Australian people. On 9 May 1986, the Treasurer said: Overall, 1986 is emerging as a year of slower, but still satisfactory growth, a year in which we will see consolidation of the very strong gains of the past three years and in which the economy can deal with the imbalance on our external account. He made that statement to the Government's own economic advisers-the members of the Economic Planning Advisory Council. Does he think that they are fools? Does he imagine that they do not have their own statistics? Does he imagine that they cannot read and that, on a day to day basis, they cannot see the trends developing in the Australian economy? It is pertinent that five days later the same man, the Treasurer, on the John Laws program in Sydney, said: Australia was becoming a `banana republic'. That truth hit many people right between the eyes. There were not a few Ministers in the Labor Government who wished the Treasurer had chosen somewhat more apt words. But they had the desired effect. They gave people a fright and shocked them back into reality. But the Treasurer stands condemned before the Australian people and in this House for the fact that for so long, for over six months, he and the Prime Minister conspired to keep the truth away from the people. For many months the Opposition has called for a mini-Budget. We identified in the four principles we put forward earlier this year the direction which policy should take. We talked about the need to reduce taxation, control wage increases and costs and give the Australian economy the chance to expand. What did we get from the Government? A range of new taxes such as the fringe benefits tax deliberately affecting, in a negative way, the small business communities of Australia-in fact, all Australian business. Labor has consistently increased taxes, which are now higher than they ever were in the Fraser years, which this Government continually likes to compare itself with, yet we are now told that this Budget is setting Australia on a course of development. On 17 August, on the 60 Minutes program, the Prime Minister, again in a great show of candour, said: We are now in a crisis which is as great as the crisis of war. I can almost hear his quasi-Churchillian tones coming over the airwaves. But again, they come too late. If he had acted six months earlier, at least in May, and had brought in a mini-Budget when it was necessary, we would now be some way down the road to recovery. We would not have a reduction in our international credit rating. We would not have the experts of Moody's Investor Services Inc. coming to Australia and having to make a statement to the world that this land, this great Australia which we have always taken for granted, is no longer fit to have an AAA rating, the highest creditworthiness. Why is that so? It is because Moody's believes that the level of our international debt has now reached the point where it may not be possible in the foreseeable future for Australia to trade its way out of a disastrous situation caused principally by the four years of profligate spending by the Hawke Labor Government. We were told last year and the year before that the Australian economy had improved a great deal. However, let us never forget that in the August 1985 Budget the Treasury specifically stated, in statement 2 of Budget Paper No. 1, at page 73: a marked deterioration in the terms of trade is expected, reflecting primarily the relative weakness of world prices for our commodity-based exports. There was the warning from the Government's own Treasury back in August 1985. Yet the Treasurer and his friend the Prime Minister consistently misled the Australian people to believe that everything was all right. They said: `Trust us and all will be well''. Now we are told: `Trust us and we will do our best. Trust us and perhaps tomorrow will be better than today. Trust us and we march to oblivion together'. The National Australia Bank and the Australian media-in fact, all the major financial institutions of this land-have analysed the Budget in recent weeks and have found that it has done little to restore domestic and international confidence in the Australian economy. On the surface, the reduction in expenditure growth and the size of the deficit was seen as impressive, provided one only took the words and did not read behind them. The National Australia Bank made the point: the Budget begins to lose credibility when the expenditure cuts are examined more closely. These cuts have been largely achieved through deferral of indexation flow-ons and increased charges. They have been achieved by fiddling with the capital account, by deferment by putting off expenditure for tomorrow. But by putting off capital expenditure, especially in the government sector, one is not necessarily saving for today or for tomorrow. Quite to the contrary; one is often increasing infrastructure expenditure for future generations. That is typical of what we have seen. The bank continued: Notwithstanding the rhetoric, few really tough decisions were taken. We were told for weeks before the Budget: `Expect the worst. This Government has come to face reality. We will squeeze the Australian economy until the pips squeak'. Mr Conquest —They said that last year. Mr CONNOLLY —That is right. As with so many great policy initiatives of the Hawke Government, it is high on rhetoric and low on performance. The Australian people were prepared for a tight Budget. But this Government has sold the Australian people short yet again. We are prepared to face the tough decisions. Essentially, we live in a harsh and often uncompromising land. Yet the decisions taken were essentially ones of deferral or creative accounting. They were not directed at the real cuts in government expenditure that are vitally necessary if this country is to solve its current economic problems. The biggest failure was not setting a framework by which inflation can be controlled. In fact, the Budget speaks of the rate of inflation remaining where it is. How does that compare with our major trading partners and other members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development? The OECD average is 3.5 per cent. Australia's average is 7.75 per cent and rising. Let us compare interest rates. In the United States of America, the rate is 5.6 per cent; in Japan, 4.7 per cent; and in West Germany, 4.4 per cent. Australia's rate is 17.4 per cent and rising. Let us compare the labour costs of our major competitors. The United States had an increase of 2.4 per cent; Canada, 2.6 per cent; and Japan, 2.2 per cent. Australia had a rate of 6.6 per cent and rising, because of the Labor Government's policies. Let us compare the balance of payments figures. Australia's current account deficit for 1985-86 was $13.7 billion, or nearly 6 per cent of gross domestic product. The totality of our overseas loans this financial year will exceed $100 billion for a population of only 16 million. How many people realised that 44c of every dollar that we earn from our declining international trade now has to go to pay overseas loans? That is why Moody's took the AAA rating away from Australia. It had to make a simple judgment on the facts-that the Australian economy is in a spiral downwards, a spiral caused by the profligate spending of this Government, its ineptitude and its willingness to trade Australia's future against its insistence on maintaining a deal with the trade union movement and with those sections of Australian society that are able to shout loudest. The time has come for a government of this land which governs in the interests of all Australians, and the sooner this Prime Minister takes the Australian people to an election and lets them choose the destiny of this land, the better for all of us. Mr O'NEIL(Grey)(11.16) —I shall respond briefly to the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), particularly because he was part of the last infamous Fraser Government. In case he is suffering from amnesia, I would like to jog his memory. Under the Fraser Government, we had record unemployment, record inflation and huge industrial disputation. Inflation rates and levels of unemployment were the highest they had been since the Great Depression of the 1930s. It is quite scandalous that he should have the gall to attack this Government, which has the guts, determination and intestinal fortitude at least to make the tough decisions that are necessary to solve the economic problems that we have throughout the world. However, I want to speak about an item which appears to have been overlooked and unnoticed by many in this House, and which has not received a high profile in the media; that is the decision by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) to abolish the isolated patients travel and accommodation assistance scheme, or IPTAAS, as it is better known, and replace it with a new State-based system. As the member representing the largest country electorate in South Australia, and the third largest electorate in the nation, I breathed a deep sigh of relief for my constituents. The scheme as it now stands has been fraught with frustrations for people in the country, who are all too often pensioners or families on low incomes and who seek only the medical attention for themselves and their children which is their right, as much as it is the right of the city dwellers who have all of their services at their doorstep. The present IPTAAS scheme was introduced by the previous Liberal Government in 1978 without any real research into the needs of isolated patients, or indeed without taking into account transport problems such as those experienced in Grey. Little thought was given to the distance and time involved in travelling from the Eyre Peninsula on the west coast to the metropolitan area. No thought was given to the administration of the scheme in relation to reasonable times of travel for those patients who depend on public transport. For example, one patient who depended on public transport came from an area on the west coast in my electorate called Streaky Bay. That person had to travel for a total of 27 hours to reach her destination in Adelaide to see a specialist. I could continue for many hours informing this House of the anomalies in the IPTAAS scheme, which was a product of the now infamous Liberal Party `fistful of dollars' campaign, for which, by the way, this nation is still paying. The idea to assist isolated patients, whilst admirable, would have best been addressed in the manner which the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) now proposes. Australia is a vast continent, and successive governments have encouraged population growth away from the major urban centres. Families who undertake to live in isolated and remote areas face special problems because of their isolation from specialist and other health services. They have unfortunately been poorly served by the IPTAAS scheme. Let me list just a few of the more common problems experienced by constituents within my electorate. Parents or spouses of patients who require medical care in a metropolitan hospital are forced to pay for their accommodation if they are not classed as an escort for medical purposes. They may wish to remain and provide family and moral support for their loved ones, yet the present scheme offers them no support. Another major problem has been the delays in reimbursement, which have often been due to mistakes and omissions in completing the application form, and also a lack of knowledge as to what the patient is eligible for. The Minister for Health, and his Department, have always ably assisted both my staff and myself in many areas of concern with the scheme as it now stands. My submissions to the Minister on the inadequacies and anomalies of the present IPTAAS arrangements would fill Lake Burley Griffin, and I am sure that the Minister is pleased that he will no longer be receiving long and detailed representations from me concerning problems with IPTAAS. Instead, I will now be pursuing the State Minister for Health in South Australia, the Hon. John Cornwall, to ensure that the development of a new scheme benefits my constituents in Grey and caters for their unique problems in obtaining specialist and other health services. I have indeed already taken steps to advise Dr Cornwall that all the material I have amassed on this subject is at his disposal in formulating a new scheme that will avoid many of the problems we have at present. Some areas require particular attention. The first is the information gap between doctor and patient, and between the doctor and the Department of Health. There will need to be an extensive education campaign to inform both doctor and patient of the details of the new scheme. Secondly, it cannot be expected that a pensioner or a very sick person can get up at 3 a.m. to catch a bus from a country town to keep an early morning appointment in the city. Provision should be made for an overnight stay under these circumstances. Thirdly, patients with terminal illness requiring treatment not available in the country are allowed to use taxis at the present time if a letter of authorisation from the doctor is produced for each claim. Payment in these cases should be granted on the basis of a permanent letter of authorisation or a form or, alternatively, provision could be made on the original claim form. Fourthly, doctors often refer patients for orthodontic services, especially in the case of children, yet many of these services are not covered by the present scheme. They should be, as should journeys for psychiatric care-as well as assistance of a prosthetic nature. In the fifth instance, provision needs to be made to enable nursing staff in remote areas, who may be the only health care providers available, to authorise claim forms, as often it is they who refer patients to specialised health care in the metropolitan area. Finally, in the case of pensioners and others on low incomes, provision should be made to exempt them from having to pay the first $30 of any claim. In many instances, the $30 requirement means that a pensioner travelling by bus has to pay all of his travelling expenses; an example of this is the bus fare of $18 from a Spencer Gulf city to Adelaide. A pensioner or low income earner must carry the entire burden of this cost when in reality they are least able to afford it. These are just some of the points that I am sure need to be investigated by the State authorities to ensure that any new scheme is satisfactory. The Hawke Labor Government has clearly recognised that an assistance scheme for rural and country communities throughout Australia is best administered by the State and Territory governments. They are responsible for the provision of their respective health services, and as providers of such services they are in a better position to supervise administration through their regional departmental branches. In this way the personalised dimension is added, and this can and will give country patients a feeling of well-being as they can identify with the service provided on a face to face basis, enabling them to sort out any problems with the application or other forms, which cause many problems, at a local level, rather than sending it away incorrectly completed and receiving back a query from faceless individuals. The Minister has endeavoured to overcome some of these problems with the introduction of two telephone numbers at the Department of Health in Adelaide which people can ring and leave their number asking the Department to ring back. However, I know from experience that country people much prefer to deal directly with departments and facilities and bringing this particular form of assistance to a local level will be very well received as it will also prevent delays in payment which presently occur. In transferring the responsibility for IPTAAS to the States and Territories the Hawke Labor Government is restoring a responsibility to those governments which should never have been encroached upon in the first place by the Federal Liberal Government in 1978. The Commonwealth is poorly placed to administer such a scheme as its knowledge of services at a local level outside the metropolitan area is limited, to say the least, and administration by the Commonwealth Department of Health personnel only serves to create ill feeling between that Department, the community, and in some instances, the medical profession. No blame should be attached to departmental personnel as theirs was the onerous task of delivering an Administrative nightmare. Fortunately, liaison between my electorate staff and the Department in Adelaide has always been cordial and many problems were fixed fairly swiftly or steps were taken to assist with the problem. The officers of the State Department of Community Welfare throughout my electorate are also to be congratulated as their handling of problems associated with IPTAAS has been first class. Their assistance to pensioners and other patient beneficiaries in the country where financial assistance has been required cannot be spoken of highly enough. Providing alternative funding to the States and Territories through the special revenue assistance grants will effectively ensure a better system for beneficiaries. The generous increase of 26 per cent in funding will also provide flexibility and speedier reimbursement for the most needy in our community and consequently facilitate planning of medical services to country areas so as to reduce the need for patient transport. To emphasise the ineffectiveness of the present IPTAAS scheme, one needs to look only at the case load of IPTAAS cases currently before and the list awaiting attention by, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The administration costs saved through this avenue alone with the abolition of IPTAAS will be massive. In closing, on behalf of my constituents I would like to thank the Minister for Health for taking this giant step forward in assistance to country patients. I applaud this decision wholeheartedly and congratulate the Minister for taking the needs of country people into account. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(11.28) —There is no doubt that the 1986 Federal Budget was welcomed initially on the basis that the deficit had been lowered to a greater extent than had been expected. Media and popular expectations had been manipulated by the Government in the lead up to the Budget to ensure that a simple, single figure-the overall deficit figure-could distract both the electorate and international analysts from a critical analysis of the Government's management plan for an economy in crisis. Critical analysis of this year's Budget reveals it to be a totally inadequate and superficial response to the economic crisis this country is facing, and I intend today to place on record the several questions both Australians and analysts overseas have been asking about the 1986 Australian Labor Party-Australian Council of Trade Unions Budget. The first question ordinary Australians are asking themselves is why the tough approach to economic management was not basic to last year's Budget, when the signs were becoming obvious that our economic situation was dangerously unstable and our economy was not adequately structured to cope with the international pressures that had been building up for so long, and why these approaches had not been made much earlier. The Opposition's approach to last year's Budget is now vindicated within the electorate as people realise that the Government's failure to discipline itself last year means we all now face problems which are greater than they need have been. As the finance editor of the Daily Telegraph has observed, this Budget is simply the Hawke Government's first attempt at responsible economic management and is an admission of the inappropriateness of the last three Budgets. The second question which must be put to the Government raises the first of the fundamental weaknesses of the Budget: Why did it not bite the bullet on wages? There was an almost unanimous response from commentators in Australia and abroad that the real weakness of the Budget was its compromise with the ACTU on another wage rise at the next wage hearing. The decision of the Government to seek only a 2 per cent discounting of wage increases signals to international observers that, ultimately, the Labor Government in Australia did not have the freedom, or perhaps the courage, to make the decision considered most important of all. It will also mean that our wage increases will be 50 per cent greater than those in the economies of competitors at a time when we will be seeking to lower costs on our exports and attract investors. As the Australian editorialised: If ever there was a moment in our history when all the evidence around us cried out for a wage freeze, this is it. If ever there was a time when the public at large and a decisive majority of wage and salary earners would be prepared to accept a reduction in their immediate expectations in order to secure their country's future, it is now. If this country is serious about competing with the rest of the world, the harsh medicine of a wage freeze should have been an essential part of the Treasurer's prescription. The other fundamental weakness of the Budget is its reliance on increased taxation to achieve a deficit reduction. The Government must answer the question: For how long will it put off the kind of fundamental tax reform which would significantly boost incentive and productivity in Australia. This Government, it appears, simply does not understand what motivates a man or woman to invest capital, which is often derived from mortgaging a family home or other assets, to establish a business and in the process create wealth and employment for the country. It fails to realise how a tax system which subverts incentive and reward for effort and risk, as it does now via the fringe benefits tax, can destroy our chances for economic recovery and growth. Why did the Government not tackle wages effectively? Why did it not take the opportunity to turn our tax system around? No government can act responsibility when it is tied to the union movement. Let there be no doubt about it-this is an ALP-ACTU Budget. This Government has given the ACTU unprecedented and unequal powers to influence government decision making and veto significant decisions which are contrary to ACTU policy or interests. The Budget, in terms of wages policy and significant public sector reform, reflects the fundamental inability of any government to act in the long term interests of the national economy when bound to the ACTU. Maximilian Walsh has written that the prices and incomes accord is now an albatross around the Government's neck. He is wrong. It is an albatross around this country's neck, and, as the accord, the ACTU and the ALP are synonymous, to remove that albatross we must remove this Government. As people have begun to ask these questions and realise the magnitude of the problems we are all going to face in the coming year, not in spite of but because of this Budget, they have been forced to ask another question: Is the Government justified in its optimism on growth and unemployment rates? The answer is no. The Budget figure commentators identified as probably the most rubbery in the 1986-87 forecasts was that concerning unemployment increases. Everyone, from the most conservative financial analysts to the spokesmen for the Australian Council of Social Service, has suggested that the unemployment figures were far too optimistic. More important, however, is the Government's optimism and, hence, gamble on the domestic and international growth rates. One of the corner-stones of the Budget was its projected international growth rate of 2.5 per cent. The day after the Budget the record quarter economic growth figure for the United States was revised down to 0.6 per cent. Reports in the following week on the Japanese economy suggest it will grow by only half the official estimates. This week the picture internationally is even worse, with a dangerous slump on Wall Street and renewed fears of international depression. Of course, in the context of recession, the belt-tightening Australians are asking why was there no attempt in the Budget to protect families from economic problems. I have been forced to tell people in my electorate that this Budget neglects the family and adds to the economic pressures that it faces. Prior to the Budget, and since, public attention was drawn to one research finding which showed that income tax imposed on a family living on average weekly earnings increased by 435 per cent over the past 10 years, while nominal wages increased by only 135 per cent. In addition to the declining real value of the family allowance-down 50 per cent since 1976-this Budget sees such families also face additional taxes through Medicare, medical prescriptions, certain consumer items and petrol. With the economic and social consequences of marital failure and family breakdowns so obvious, not to mention the devastating effects on individuals through family violence and hardship as a result, one would have thought that a strategy was necessary to support families during harder economic times. My colleague Senator Chaney has written in the Australian: This Budget fails miserably by failing to set any sort of social direction for Australia. It speaks merely of trimming living standards and, against that background of more economic difficulty for individuals, does nothing to support the family unit which is the best protection against adversity and hardship. Let me point here again to tax reform. The Government is reviewing social security payments to the family, but what is needed is not another rejuggling of welfare handouts but a reform of the tax system which gets government off the backs of families. This Budget should have been about tax reform which left families with more of their own income and, so, with greater independence and strength to cope with a recession. The final question that I have heard raised in my electorate is: Should our security be weakened for domestic political reasons? Defence spending was one area that was reined in in the 1986 Budget. It will grow at only one per cent in real terms, with some commentators suggesting negative real growth after allowing for payment of the fringe benefits tax and for more expensive equipment because of the dollar's continuing devaluation. The Government's consultant, Mr Paul Dibb, recently recommended a minimum 3 per cent growth rate over the next several years to provide for adequate defence. The Budget has rejected that assessment. As I said in Parliament two days after the Budget, the Government should determine what our interests are as a nation and how they are best to be pursued and protected. It should determine its defence budget on the basis of the realities of our international and regional strategic environment. Money should then be allocated on that basis and not in the inverted fashion of setting a politically defined domestic budget and then determining which targets will be met and which obligations will be jettisoned. The several questions that I have raised suggest, I believe, that the initial support for the Budget by many journalists and, if the polls are right, just over half the electorate, was mistaken. Perhaps in summary it should be said that this Budget has not produced the substantial and radical reform our economy needs to save it sliding into a Third World, seige economy. Nor has it convinced international analysts that Australia has turned the corner. This will have a significant impact on our future investment, the currency, our deficit and debt and interest rates. For not having tackled our problems last year, and not having introduced real reform this year, it is likely that Australians will face even harder choices next year. P. P. McGuiness has written: Already the world is looking upon Australia as the newest recruit to the Third World-a country rivalled only by Britain in its success in turning high industrialisation into a basis for poverty. The Opposition is determined not to see Australia slide into poverty and underdevelopment. It will therefore continue to oppose this Government's dangerous policies and to offer the people of Australia alternative policies which will reduce government, reduce taxes, reduce union power, restructure our labour markets, and encourage investment and productivity. Mr JENKINS(Scullin)(11.40) —This, the fourth Budget brought down by the Hawke Government, is, as has been noted earlier in the debate, effectively only the sixth Budget brought down by a Labor government in the past 37 years. It has been introduced in an era when ordinary Australians are hearing, some for the first time, about such terms as the trade deficit, balance of payments, the J-curve, the Dow Jones index and, most recently, Moody's Investor Services Inc., Standard and Poor's Corporation and the AAA rating. News bulletins are regularly punctuated with status reports of the health of the Australian dollar. Expert economic commentary has become an integral part of any broadcast. Investment and financial copy has been promoted from the middle third of our daily newspapers to headline news. Our economy is talked up and down with remarkable regularity. The short answer that explains why most of these things have become so newsworthy is the Government's policy of financial deregulation, which has increased their influence on our affairs. While the popularisation of these terms is relatively recent, the problems themselves are long standing. Let us take the trade deficit, for example, a problem of considerable magnitude that presently plagues the Australian economy. But whilst it is only over the past few months that it has commenced to dominate the headlines, the problem has its origin in the actions of successive Liberal Party Treasurers, culminating in the current discredited Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), who year after year tarnished their shining free-market economic rhetoric with concessions to National Party colleagues in the form of protectionist policies. The price of subsidy in our economy is now being exacted. As the Government has taken steps to deregulate the economy-something which the coalition has often shouted about but never attempted-so, too, have the structural weaknesses of our economy been exposed, weaknesses which are not the fault of this Labor Government but the responsibility of the Liberal-National Party, which mismanaged the economy with a remarkable consistency for more than 30 years out of the past 37. When the discredited Leader of the Opposition gets to his feet and says `if I were Treasurer' he should be told: `You were, and once is enough'. If for no other reason, this is why the honourable gentleman will never be Prime Minister of Australia. The Australian people will never forget the cruel years when almost single-handedly he made hardship a national characteristic. We are now paying the price of the policies of Liberal-National Party governments. The manufacturing sector, the export sector, the rural sector-every Australian is paying. We must never forget, however, that the capacity of some Australians to pay is more than others. Even in our harsh economic climate, ordinary people, through their government, have the right to expect genuine and compassionate attempts to address the problems of poverty and to protect the disadvantaged in our community. It is worth remembering that over the past decade the number of Australians in poverty has more than doubled. At the time of Poverty Action Day in June of this year, an estimated 2.8 million Australians, including over 800,000 children, were deprived of adequate shelter, clothing and food. These people have paid for many years, and it gives me no satisfaction to admit that they continue to pay. As has previously been noted, a consequence of financial deregulation is that large sections of the Australian economy are opened to the control of outside forces. To a greater extent than ever before, economic well-being is in the hands of the business and financial community, not only Australian but international. In this context, the Budget has been framed to attract favourable activity from that sector. As the Government has acknowledged, the cutting of the deficit, further wage discounting and deferral of poverty trap measures and pension increases, and other measures, all lead to a drop in the living standards of ordinary Australians. People whose belts were tight enough have been asked to tighten them further so that the macro-economic basis for increased business investment could be created. Ordinary Australians have made their sacrifices and, in a very real sense, the money markets, private enterprise and the media have got what they wanted. The ball has been placed in the court of business and finance and yet outcomes since the Budget leave a great deal to be desired. As the Government has deregulated large sections of the economy, new terminology has been introduced into the national vocabulary. Most recently, the index of Moody's Investor Services Inc. has been making front page news. To my way of thinking, whether or not the downgrading of our credit rating was justified is not really the point. What I believe to be of grave concern is that some organisation not elected by the Australian people can attempt to have a profound effect on Australia's internal affairs and the well-being of the Australian people. Fortunately, as Moody's downgrading of New Zealand's rating in 1984 illustrates, the consequences of Australia's changed rating are not likely to be great. Nevertheless, the point remains that the business and financial communities have had very generous treatment from this Government. The favourable environment that they have demanded has been created. Yet they still want more-more cuts in government spending, further wage restraint, which in real terms translates into wage cuts, and further hardship amongst those least able to endure it, the poor. I suspect that the time is rapidly approaching when ordinary Australian men and women will tire of seeing their economy ripped apart at the whim of overseas interests and international financial markets. Let us never forget that these people have no allegiance to Australia, and no intrinsic reason to act in accordance with Australia's long term interests or the well-being of its citizens. Let us never forget that these people, in whose hands our economic future has been increasingly put, are in the business of profit. If profit is their end, the means to that end is to create a nation of slaves to the Dow Jones index. The prospect of Australians waking every morning to hear some minor New York bank official pass judgment on our internal affairs is one that I find deeply alarming; one which ultimately has grave implications for our democratic system. At a public meeting in my electorate last week, there was considerable outcry from those in our community who, by any yardstick, would be considered disadvantaged. One comment in particular sticks in my mind. A woman, a pension beneficiary, stated: `We don't mind tightening our belts for the good of the country, but the prices keep going up'. She went on to explain that typical corner store prices were edging up almost weekly. I remind honourable members that these are the people whose pension increases have been deferred and who have seen vital poverty trap measures delayed in this Budget. Another constituent wrote to me, indicating her sense of betrayal that, on the day after the Budget-an acknowledged tough Budget-was brought down, business leaders cried for further measures, wage freezes and more public spending cuts. She asked: `When will the haves of our community demonstrate similar sacrifices to those that are forced upon the have-nots?'. The Government has stated that the sacrifices should be borne equally. It is our responsibility to ensure that this occurs. The sacrifices of Australians in the form of unprecedented wage restraint achieved under the prices and incomes accord, and the sacrifices of those reliant on welfare by deferral of increases and the poverty trap measures, must be matched by others in our community. One area where we must see restraint is prices. What has the Opposition to say about price restraint? In January of this year the Leader of the Opposition, the architect of despair, told a conference of Young Liberals that they should not let Labor get away with the claim that it has some kind of monopoly on compassion. Of course, we must distinguish carefully between trite posturing and reality. The absurd claim of the Leader of the Opposition to compassion can probably be dismissed simply by reference to his record as Treasurer. In fact, I agree with his remark in response to this Budget that the Australian disease, as he put it, is not amnesia. Every Australian bears the scars of his reign as Treasurer; they will not forget. Let us look briefly at his response to the Budget to see whether he showed any glimmer of compassion. The first thing I noticed was his commitment to abolish the Prices Surveillance Authority. At least he has compassion for shopkeepers. Prices are not sufficiently controlled as it is. The purchasing power of Australian wage earners, not to mention pensioners and beneficiaries, has been considerably eroded over the past two years. In the past year, while wages have risen by about 7 per cent, prices have risen by more than 9 per cent. By threatening to abolish the Prices Surveillance Authority, the Leader of the Opposition is offering the Australian people open season on exploitation. This is the measure of Liberal compassion. Elsewhere in his response to the Budget, the discredited Leader of the Opposition told us that a Liberal-National Party government would require the unemployed to work for the dole. He gave no indication of what sort of work he had in mind, although under a Howard government we would undoubtedly see a return to the failed economic formula of the Fraser years-namely, to fight inflation at the expense of jobs. Thus, it is not difficult to imagine that, as the dole queues grew even longer, we would see the creation of Liberal road gangs-one gang digging holes, the next filling them in. Unemployed Australians would be compelled to do mindless, menial work, all for the sake of an ideological fetish. Is this the compassion we have been told to expect? Of course, the Leader of the Opposition has borrowed plenty of ideological catch-cries from other leading neo-conservatives such as Margaret Thatcher. But essentially his response to the Budget has been simply to join in the Oliver Twist-like chorus of the business and financial communities in calling for more-more cuts in government spending, more wage restraint, more hardship and more profit. For the two to three million people living in poverty in this country and for the many wage and salary earners whose belts are tight enough this is not a pleasant prospect. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(11.51) —That the Parliament is becoming largely irrelevant to the public debate would be quite obvious to the children and the other people sitting in the public gallery-- Mr Scholes —Can't you get the National Party in to listen to you any more? Mr SINCLAIR —And even to the Minister who has just interjected. He need have no doubts on that score. People who are listening to the broadcast of this debate must understand that the Labor Government is trying more and more to concentrate the public debate in the media. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has launched a vitriolic attack against the Fairfax Press. He has done so as part of this demonstration of personal instability that is more and more apparent. I refer to the attack he made on the Premier of Queensland, and the way in which he finds himself unable to argue the facts, but finds it necessary to resort to personal invective in a way which is not only totally unjustifiable but also very belittling of a person who, for the time being, albeit temporarily, holds the position of Prime Minister of Australia. It is particularly pertinent, however, that people understand that this Budget debate today is taking place a full month after the Budget was introduced. The House rose prematurely after one week. The Government was not prepared to have the detail of the Budget examined. Indeed, every honourable member who speaks in this debate must limit his remarks to 10 minutes. What earthly chance does one have in 10 minutes to examine the detail of the arithmetic of the principal financial statement of the biggest business in Australia? Ten minutes does not allow one even to outline the detail of the figuring which gives this rather dubious deficit figure of $3.5 billion. It allows one to talk about the generality and the perspectives. This is occurring a month after the Budget was presented. We all know that the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) and the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) have already thrown serious doubts on the credibility of the spending cuts of the Government. They have said quite publicly that a mini-Budget is necessary. How right they are. There has been doubt about the degree to which the deficit figure of $3.5 billion can be achieved, on the basis that the growth figures are, to say the least, rubbery. The labour industrial relations figuring is most uncertain, and the doubt about the parameters of the spending cuts is certainly emphasised by the reality that those two people-the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Minister for Finance-each believes that further spending cuts are necessary. In talking to the Budget today, I want first to say that we on this side of the House are very concerned that the Budget does not give the people of Australia a lead and an opportunity to get out of the day by day, real economic malaise, evidenced by the marking down by Moody's Investor Service Inc. of the credit rating of Australia, the devaluation of the Australian dollar, and the fact that the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) has just failed abysmally at the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade talks in Uruguay. All of these matters cumulatively place a new low on the status of this country and mark down the living standards of the people who live here. Sadly, there is nothing in this Budget that offers any solace to the people who would try to do something about it. I want to talk about people in two sectors in particular-the rural sector and small businesses. For a long while they have expressed concern to the Government that the nature of tax changes in the Australian Community is prejudicing them significantly. We all know about the National Taxation Summit. We recall that the Government had no tax policy before the 1984 election. We understand that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) had an option C which he said would be the solution to Australia's economic ills. We know that the Prime Minister dumped him and that the Government finished up with option D and a few nasties as well. Of those components of tax I draw particular attention to three elements. The first is that the Government did not proceed with the personal income tax cuts as promised. Instead, it allowed wage increases, by way of both the superannuation deal with the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the 2.3 per cent national wage increase. Had the Government been prepared to pass immediately those personal income tax cuts that the Prime Minister had promised, the average Australian taxpayer would have been better off. There would have been a real incentive for people to work a bit harder, because they would get more of the money they earned in their pockets as tax would have been down. In our view, people would have been given a carrot instead of the stick that the Government has offered. The second element is that the Government has changed the tax package. The change does not involve just the capital gains tax and the fringe benefits tax. It is the introduction of personal assessment-this passes personal liability to every taxpayer in a way which creates real problems for the future-and the substantial requirements for any business related expenditure that concerns me. In one particular area for farmers and small business there is still absolute confusion as to whether the pamphlet-blue, purple, pink or whatever colour it might be-on the fringe benefits tax accurately tells farmers their obligation. If there is one area in which this Government has failed in its introduction of new taxes, apart from the fact that they should not be there at all, it concerns the fact that nobody can yet find out the nature of their FBT obligation, a tax which falls due for the first quarter at the end of September, which is now only a few days away. Even this morning I had yet another example of the total confusion and conflict within the Government's advice. Australian Taxation Offices in Tamworth, Sydney and Canberra are unable to give the taxpayer advice as to just what will happen. Let me explain. As most people would know, I come from a pastoral area of Australia. In New England there are many fine wool fleeces and many wool sheds that produce magnificent apparel wool. It concerns me that the Taxation Office booklet entitled `Instructions for group employers and tax stamp employers affected by the Fringe Benefits Tax' states the following in respect of shearing industry employees: The value of board and quarters provided to `found' employees and the allowance paid to `not found' employees are subject to Fringe Benefits Tax. In its item `accommodation for seasonal workers' it states: Farmers often engage-and provide accommodation to temporary workers such as shearers or fruitpickers, whose permanent home is elsewhere. The provision of the accommodation in these circumstances is not subject to fringe benefits tax. Shearing industry employees are not permanent employees; they are employed as casuals and work either on a found or not found basis. For reasons I found a little incredible, the benefits that employers are obligated to provide in order to have their shearing undertaken will be subject to the fringe benefits tax, but if one happens to work in another industry apparently such benefits are exempt. Let me repeat that in another part of the same booklet, when talking about accommodation for seasonal workers, it is stated that accommodation to temporary workers such as shearers or fruit pickers, whose permanent home is elsewhere, is to be exempt from the fringe benefits tax. The reality is that whether one is running a farm or a small business the fringe benefits tax is an unnecessary obligation. It is a real deterrent to people who want to get on with their daily lives at a time when government charges, incidentals and obligations are getting more extensive. Yet people are still unable to get any advice from the Government as to just what is going on. What worries me even more in that respect is that I am told that the Taxation Office has stated it would not be prepared to put anything into writing about the assessment obligations. I find that totally unacceptable. The Treasurer alone has a responsibility within the next week, which is in the last sitting bracket before the first quarter of the fringe benefits tax concludes, to explain, without equivocation, the exact liability of all employers, whether they are big, small business, farmers or people in any other category, what their liabilities will be. That is absolutely essential. In a circumstance where the Taxation Office is not prepared to give in writing advice to employers it is quite impossible for any citizen to meet his proper tax obligations. All the hoo-ha on the other side of the House about equity in tax just falls into disarray on that basis. I want to speak briefly about the elements of the Budget relating to defence. It is important that people understand that the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) has already reduced his target set down when the report of the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities was brought down by the reduction in the provision of funds in the defence vote this year. It is important to understand that yet again the Government has totally ignored the reality of the terms and conditions of operation within the services for the men and women of whom all on this side of the House are inordinately proud. Yet honourable members opposite seem intent on virtually destroying them, certainly in terms of their having any incentive to remain in the services. I am delighted that the former Minister for Defence, the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes), whose misleading of the Defence Force was characteristic of the 1983 election campaign, is sitting at the table at this moment. We all remember that he said that service men and women could be content, that their superannuation benefits, their Defence Force retirement benefits and Defence Force retirement and death benefits entitlements would not be touched. Not only was that policy reversed in the Australian Labor Party's first Budget but we need to remember how the Government changed the superannuation entitlement of Defence Force employees. There used to be an ability, under a commutation entitlement, to avoid the obligations of paying tax other than 5 per cent of the amount. However the Minister for Territories misled every service man and woman by saying before the election: `There will be no change in your entitlement'. He said: `I did not know anything about it. It was all done by the Treasurer'. The right hand does not know what the left hand does. No member of the Government can feel contrite in that not only did it affect service benefits then, but in this Budget it has made a further reduction of 2 per cent. We know that there is to be a discounting to pensioners because of devaluation. The reality is that DFRDB and DFRB are very significant components of service entitlements. This Government has ignored completely the comparable circumstances of employment of people wearing a uniform and people in the civil service. It should know that there is a far greater obligation on people wearing a service uniform than there is on those who wear an ordinary civilian suit in fort fumble. I think it is absolutely appalling that the characteristics of the serviceman's work obligation are so denigrated by the Government that it not only taxed servicemen more in its first Budget but in this Budget it is seeking to further reduce its contractual obligation which is part of their superannuation dues and the DFRB and DFRDB entitlement. There are other elements, too, and I will briefly refer to a couple. First, to sell the Anzac rifle range at Malabar in Sydney and the Merrett rifle range near Williamstown in Victoria, without reference to the Department of Defence, is yet another example of the right hand not knowing what the left hand does. The Government will not get any money out of that. I can tell the Minister for Territories, and I could tell any other Labor members if they were here, that the Anzac range has been built on filled property. It is not land that can be converted to housing; it is not land that can be used for any other productive purpose. It is land which has been developed significantly to provide in the heart of Sydney an opportunity for people to learn to use firearms safely and to develop their marksman's skill. It is used by the police forces, the Army and others to ensure that there is a high standard of understanding of rifle use and accuracy in rifle firing in New South Wales. It is appalling that, without consulting anybody, the Government will sell its rifle ranges. It does not know how they will be administered. A bicentennial international rifle event is prejudiced because the idiots in the Government say: `We will get a few bob by selling them'. The reality is that the Government cannot sell the Anzac rifle range for any worthwhile civilian purpose and it would be far better if it had retained it. In Victoria the situation is slightly different but it would be far better if the Government had said: `We recognise the continuing need for a rifle range and we will assist in relocating that range'. Secondly, I am very concerned that, in the Government's general directions within its defence policy, it is still writing down the necessary capability of the Australian Defence Force at a time of increased instability in our area. I quote to the Minister and to the Government a commentary from the Wednesday, 19 June 1985, edition of the Washington Times referring to some remarks by Owen Harries who, as we all know, is a former Australian Ambassador to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation: . . . writing in the June Commentary, [he] believed that there are clear signs of imminent deterioration in the strategic situation in the Southeast Asia and Southwest Pacific area. The outcome of the struggle for naval supremacy in the area between the United States and the USSR may determine the destiny of the Free World, including Western Europe. The article is headed `Trouble in Paradise' and was written by Arnold Beichman, who is a fairly distinguished commentator on international affairs. There is much more that I could say. There has been any amount of illustrations since that time, more than 12 months ago, of the escalating Soviet presence in our area. We do not believe that there is an imminent threat to Australia from the Soviet Union but we believe that we need to have an adequate, well trained and well manned defence force of high morale, able to meet any developing contingency in our area. The area of particular concern to us is resignation rates from the services. The resignation rate for male officers in the first three months of this year was up 46 per cent on the same period in 1985. In the second three months it was up 47 per cent on the parallel figure of the year before. With only the July figures in, male officer resignations for the September quarter are already at almost the five-year average for the whole three months. We cannot take those figures lightly. After a year of delay veterans still await for the promised new defence service home loan scheme. I have mentioned the problem in the reduction of the DFRB entitlement. We know that within the services there is already a significantly poor civilian-serviceman ratio. In Australia the ratio is 0.53 : 1. In other words, it takes more than five civilians to support every 10 soldiers in the Force. Permanent forces are now, for the first time post-Vietnam, below 70,000. Civilians at this stage comprise 36 per cent of the defence establishment in Australia. That compares with 25 per cent in Sweden, 23 per cent in France, 27 per cent in West Germany, 30 per cent in Canada and only 10 per cent in Japan. Administration costs, which were 8.5 per cent of the defence budget in 1985-86, are up to 10.2 per cent of the defence Budget this year. The defence forces are being pruned in the uniform personnel and are growing in the civilian corps, I say to the Minister and to the Government that, unless they recognise that there has to be greater encouragement of the uniform personnel at the time we see a deteriorating strategic situation in our region, the Australian defence personnel will be unable to meet their obligations. We believe that there should be an immediate reference to the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal on the question of the comparability of pay and conditions to those available in the civil service and in the civilian work force. The reality is that this Government listens to the pleas of the trade unions as far as the members of the Australian Public Service are concerned but has refused to listen to the cries of those in uniform who are trying to achieve equity for themselves in industrial relations. The reality is that this Government has, for the first time, presided over the establishment of an armed forces federation, simply because there is no way defence personnel can get equity from members of the Labor Government. It is essential that this government address the reality that within the Defence Force the terms and conditions of employment of uniform personnel are falling now to an abysmally low level. It is necessary to increase the quality of arms. It is necessary to increase the standards available to operate the high technology equipment the Force has. But the Government is not going to retain or gain people of ability unless it pays them, equips them and treats them equitably. Sadly, that has not been done by this Government and there is no sign within this budget that it intends to change its position. This Budget is a failure. I commend the shadow Treasurer for his approach to the Budget in detail. I believe that it is time for the Government to introduce a mini-budget and that the Government should heed the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the pleas of the Minister for Finance and bring back to this House, before the end of next week at least, a full explanation of how the fringe benefits tax will affect the citizens of this country. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented by the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair). Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Does the honourable member wish to make a personal explanation? Mr SCHOLES —Yes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr SCHOLES —During the right honourable gentleman's tirade, in which he used abuse as a substitute for argument, he said that I had been responsible for detrimental changes in the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits scheme. He also referred to pay rates and conditions in the defence forces. No detrimental changes to the DFRDB scheme were made while I was the Minister for Defence. The right of inquiry into pay rates was made automatic to the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal. The honourable gentleman was the only Minister in the history of this Parliament to have refused to allow an inquiry into defence forces pay on the grounds that they were paid too much. Mr O'KEEFE(Burke)(12.12) —In addressing Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1986-87, I had not intended to wander into the defence area but, after hearing the contribution by the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), I thought I would make one point. Last Thursday night I had the pleasure of attending a retirement dinner for the commanding officer at Puckapunyal Army Base, on the edge of my electorate. I had a very interesting discussion with a number of senior military officers at that dinner. It was interesting to hear their comment that, regardless of the politics or of the way things come out in the wash, under this Government the uniformed personnel of the Australian defence forces have observed a significantly improved approach and attitude, not only to their own personal conditions but also in the commitment the Government has made to the defence of Australia. What we hear in the House is the tired rhetoric of a failed defence Minister, up against the actions of the government of the day with a Minister who is producing results. In my own electorate I also find a very positive response to the changed approach to purchasing equipment for the defence forces. No longer do we wander along as a supplicant, cap in hand, to one of our allies off-shore who might deign to assist us if we buy our equipment from them. We are now insisting that Australia's defence equipment be manufactured in Australia. The use by the Federal Government of its purchasing capability to wind up our defence manufacturing facilities is welcomed, not only in the defence services but also in industry. That is one of the very positive results of the approach of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). I want to tackle another area that is quite distinct from this area. I want to talk about the initiatives-I use that word advisedly-that this Government has taken to assist the small business sector. That brings me to this question of the fringe benefits tax and the relevance it has in this debate. The Appropriation Bill brings into effect the revenue results of a number of measures the Government has introduced. One is the decision of the Government to change the position on retained profits in small business. We, as a government, have provided for small business to retain profits to reinvest in the business without the profits being subject to taxation. Those honourable members on the other side of the House who purport to represent business interests for years allowed a situation to exist whereby there was no incentive for a small business proprietor to keep the profits in the business to buy new machinery or to invest in the upgrading of skills, staff or plant. In fact, it was a situation where many-I know many-who had a good year simply used the profits to take a trip or do something else so that they would not be subject to taxation. What we have done is to encourage business to keep those profits within the business and to reinvest them as retained profits not subject to taxation. That is a move that is now just starting to be understood in the small business sector, and I can tell honourable members that it is widely welcomed by those small business proprietors. The results of the brave decision of this Government to grant the benefits of full imputation of dividends are just starting to flow through into the business sector. We are now one of the two Western industrial countries to have full imputation. Many small businesses which act as suppliers to the larger companies which get the benefit of this imputation decision will gain direct benefits from expansion in investment in the larger companies. Every small business proprietor acknowledges that this Government, with the assistance of various State Labor governments-I talk specifically about Victoria-has been responsible for substantially reducing wage and on-costs for small business. The tax cuts which are coming through will not only provide extra income in the hands of employees and extra spending power which boosts small business, but will also assist in cutting the costs of employers. We have seen reductions in payroll tax, and in Victoria of course, the work care system has produced very real savings in workers compensation premiums for small business. We have seen the flow-on that is coming through from the changed arrangements in negative gearing. Instead of speculative high profit stuff like Gold Coast flats, business investors in the bricks and mortar sector are now moving back to flats and residential properties. That, of course, results in a buoyant local building industry, which is right at the heart of small business, particularly in our country and provincial centres. This has been observed by myself and by other members of the country task force of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) as we have looked at these issues and ensured that the policies come through with this sort of effect on these towns. I also want to look at the question of the fringe benefits tax and I want to put it into perspective. It is something about which there is a lot of noise. It is something that really is of very minor significance in the overall economy in Australia. In this year's Budget-those on the other side who like to talk about the disincentive for business caused by government taxes perhaps ought to look at these figures and understand them-the total government revenue is $71 billion. Business, through company tax, will pay $7 billion of that. In other words, only 10 per cent of Australia's government tax revenue comes from company tax. Mr Conquest —Who pays the wages? Mr O'KEEFE —Who pays the majority of tax in Australia, my friend on the other side of the House asks. It is the ordinary workers, the PAYE taxpayers. They pay $36 billion and that is the reason why we needed tax reform. They also pay a number of other taxes as consumers. It is not the companies or business, as the lot opposite bleat, but the ordinary worker who goes home with his after-tax dollars and has to pay petrol taxes and sales taxes. Those opposite might point the finger and say `Yes, petrol taxes', but how did we get petrol taxes at this level? It was their Government which failed to collect business taxes. It was their Government which allowed all the tax avoiders to slip out of the system. It was their Government that developed a $9 billion deficit and the only way they could fund it was to whack on petrol taxes and to increase workers' PAYE taxes. That is why we have set about a major reform of the tax system, that is why we are handing out tax cuts of $4.5 billion, and that is why, as we go on to produce a progressively fairer system, the people of Australia will understand what it is all about. Let me turn to the fringe benefits tax. In this year's Budget, how much is that going to contribute? Not 10 per cent, as is the case with company tax, not 3 per cent, as with import duties, but in fact 0.2 of one per cent. That is how much we are going to get from the fringe benefits tax. Let us put it in perspective. Some of my National Party colleagues might like to refer to the editorial in the Australian Financial Review of Tuesday, 12 August. This is not some sort of Australian Labor Party paper; this is business's own paper. It said this about the FBT: Those who are expending so much energy fighting it should look at the graph on page 1 . . . It shows that our trade with New Zealand has now gone into deficit; that NZ imports to Australia have kept rising strongly since the introduction of Closer Economic Relations . . . 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. There is a bit of a message there. Honourable members opposite should talk to the people who write their speeches for them and pass on that message. Let us look at another comment on the fringe benefits tax. In the Bulletin of 26 August is an article which includes this little homily: Sometime soon the dollar coin will drop. Potentially the fringe benefits tax could bring a boom to the car industry. If that incites the curiosity of honourable members opposite, I suggest they go off and read that article. Anne Davies in the Australian Financial Review wrote: The fringe benefits tax, rather than putting a dampener on employee incentives, can be used to design more innovative and attractive salary packages . . . She went on to tell them how to do it. I return to the message: While businesses in Australia are whinging, others are out there getting on with it and pinching their markets. I will put it in perspective. Only 0.2 of one per cent of this year's Budget comes from the fringe benefits tax. I had the pleasure during this week of sitting in on a meeting of our industry committee with some representatives of one of Australia's large chemical companies. We were talking about one of the initiatives for industry in this Government's package-the 150 per cent tax deduction for research and development. Those representatives acknowledged that during the period of the previous Government, research and development in Australia was stifled and run down. That is why we have not got any products. That is why we have had so much trouble surviving out there in the export market. This Government has introduced a 150 per cent tax incentive, and it is working. Interestingly, this particular company has picked up $45m worth of tax deductions from that research and development grant. I asked them how much their fringe benefits tax was. They said that that was really going to hurt them, that it was going to be nearly $4m. They are going to pay $4m in fringe benefits tax, but they have received a research and development tax deduction of over 10 times that amount. All employers ought to be putting the fringe benefits tax into perspective. I wind up by saying that there is a message to get across. We understand that. Amid all the distortion and misrepresentation that goes on people do get confused. These are complex matters that have to be well explained. Built into these measures are real initiatives for small business. They have a direct and positive effect on the climate for small business. I happen to think that small business has the capacity to accept the challenge and respond positively to the incentive that we have given. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(12.25) —The honourable member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe) concluded by referring to distortion and misrepresentation. Had he been referring to the Budget Speech and to the Budget plan I would have understood that he was quite accurate. This Budget has nothing in it for the people, for business, for the enterprising, for the farmers, for the poor or for the young. Let us go back to the bare facts, stripped of rhetoric, falsehoods, dubious assumptions and economic platitudes that existed when this Government came into power. Mr Scholes —You would not recognise the facts. Mr SPENDER —It came into power as the fortunate beneficiary of a wages pause-which the Minister for Territories would most certainly not recognise-of an international economic revival and of the breaking of the drought which had crippled our rural economy. Since it came to power it has taken to heart the teaching of Dr Goebbels. The House will remember that Dr Goebbels was the nazi propaganda chief who believed in the efficacy of the big lie. His theory was that you invented a lie and repeated the lie again and again, and that if it was repeated often enough the people may believe what was said. What was the big lie? It was that there was a $9.4 billion deficit left to the Australian Labor Party and only the wisdom, the determination and the far sightedness of this gang of mediocrities pulled us out of the economic abyss. Its own figures give the lie to this squalid fiction. The Budget deficit for 1982-83, a deficit which could not have been affected by government policy, was $4.448 billion; that is, less than $4.5 billion, less than half the $9.4 billion legacy the Government claims was left to it. In the next year, of course, with a full year of Labor government, the deficit went up to $7.9 billion-an increase of a paltry $2.3 billion under these brilliant economic managers. What happened to the Howard deficit? It was never there. The Government knows that it was never there. Nothing it did could have affected the deficit outcome in the way in which the deficit outcome came out. So let us put that lie to one side because that is what it is. Let us see what we have after 3 1/2 years of the Hawke Government. We have unemployment at 8.3 per cent and growing. We have inflation at 8 per cent which is four times the average of our trading partners and our trading competitors. We have terms of trade that show little signs of recovery despite our greatly depressed dollar. We have a current account deficit which has reached truly alarming levels. If we go back to 1984-85 we see that it was $10.8 billion. In 1985-86 it was $13.7 billion, and the estimate for the current year is $14.6 billion. We depend largely on capital inflow to balance the books. Last year we received about $11 billion of capital inflow and it looks as though we will need the same kind of capital inflow this year just to balance our accounts. Our overseas level of debt has reached unparalleled heights. If we go back to June 1975 it was only $6 billion. By June 1984 overseas debt had risen to $45 billion. By June 1985 under this Government it was $68.5 billion, and by June 1986 it was $88.6 billion. Our level of gross overseas debt doubled in the period between June 1984 and June 1986. With a $20 billion increase each year there is little wonder that we had a fair amount of fragile growth in the Australian economy. One of the worrying features of our exposure in overseas debt is the extent of uncovered private exposure. As yet, we do not know the extent of that exposure, but rumour and anecdotal evidence demonstrate that there are many people, many investors and many companies, which may have got themselves burnt by borrowing in overseas currencies and not hedging; they gambled on the Australian dollar or, to put it better, they believed that the Australian dollar would maintain some fair value under this Government. Some figures have been cited. It may be that we are looking to a figure of $3 billion to $4 billion of uncertain borrowings. One does not know. It may be less. I certainly hope that it is considerably less. If one or two middleweight companies go belly-up that will hardly be good for the economy of this country. If that happens, it will be a reflection of the move in the exchange rates. That in itself goes straight back to this Government. I will come now to the interest on government debt. Since Old Silver and the grave-digger took over, interest on government debt has climbed greatly. If we go back to 1982-83 we see that it was $3.378 billion-that is, less than $4 billion. By 1985-86 it had increased to $7.053 billion. If we exclude payments to the States it has now reached No. 2 in the list of government outlays. Before this Government can pay a public servant, before it can buy a cup of tea, it has to pay out over $7 billion in interest. What is the estimate for 1986-87? It is $7.513 billion for interest on government debt. Is that likely to be the outcome? We do not know. But if we go back to last year's figures we see that the actual outcome for 1985-86 was $329m more than the estimated outcome, which does not give us great heart when we look to the estimates and the accuracy of them. What kind of an effect would an outcome of $8 billion in government debt interest have on the Australian economy? Is it any wonder that with those kinds of figures we get the kinds of assessments by organisations such as Moody's Investor Services Inc. Economic indicators, as everyone knows, are widely depressed. Consumer confidence is at its lowest sustained level since the consumer sentiment index was established in 1975. We all know what has happened to the Australian dollar. It has dropped precipitously, and as a result has greatly increased the cost of imports, many of which are essential for Australian industry. Interest rates are at historically high levels. They have choked investment, have ruined small businesses, have closed productive enterprises and have forced farmers to quit their holdings. And yes, we have the trilogy itself. Remember the great trilogy. This was to be the hallmark of a government which was honest in all things. We know a great deal about the standard of honesty of this Government. When one comes to its honesty in economic management one sees that in tax revenue as a proportion of gross domestic product the 1985-86 outcome broke the trilogy commitment and the 1986-87 outcome is forecasted to break that commitment. These are the Government's economic achievements while maintaining another big lie, and that is, that until recently all was for the best in the best of all possible worlds. The economy was run by an incompetent man and his offsider. Let us remember what the Government has said about the economy. On 25 January 1986 the Prime Minister was asked about interest rates. The Age reports him as saying: Well, if you ask six economists you'll probably get six different answers. That is, on levels of the Australian dollar- But I guess the range of opinion is 72 to 75 cents. I wonder when it will return to 72c or 75c. On 20 May in this House, the Treasurer said: So what we have is an entirely healthy economy. Let me make the point that the Australian economy has been entirely robust. Just a few days later, on the famous John Laws show, he said: If this Government can't get the internal economic adjustment, get manufacturing going and keep moderate wage outcomes and a sensible economic policy, then Australia is basically done for. Very recently the Prime Minister said: The party is over-finito-and Australians have to understand it is finito . . . I hope in a sense Australians realise that we are now in a crisis which is as great as the crisis of war . . . Those comments were made by our Prime Minister on 17 August. His party is certainly finito, but the country is not. The Government has been in office for 3 1/2 years. At no time until the last few months was there any mention by the Government of any difficulties at all. It repeated bland and stupid assurances, backed up by people such as the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes), who is at the table, to the effect that everything was fine and wonderful, we had such wise and competent economic administrators. Yet, anybody with any sense knew that things were bad and that the underlying trends were fragile. How do we account for the fact that within such a short time the Government could turn itself around? How do we account for the fact that in May the Treasurer said that we had an entirely healthy economy when the Prime Minister now says `finito' and that we have something like a state of war? This question will be asked again and again. There are only two explanations. The first is that the Government did not know at any time what it was doing, it did not understand the underlying trends, the effect of massive overseas borrowings, the effect that high interest rates would have on the confidence of others in the Australian economy, what was happening to the international markets or the effect on our economy of international competition and the drop in commodity prices. It is possible that the Government did not understand any of those things. The second explanation is that the Government had a very good idea that things were going bad, but it wanted to hang on until the very end, trying to avoid confronting the truth, hoping that something would turn up. Nothing has turned up. We have certainly had nothing in terms of Government action. From the very beginning we have had a failure of action on the part of this increasingly erratic Prime Minister-a failure to come openly, early and honestly to the Australian people and say: `These are the problems after our years of power'. The admission had to be forced out of the Government, just as it was apparently forced out of the Treasurer. How else can one explain these repeated assurances to the Australian people and the 180 degree switch in the assessment of the people? Was the Government being dishonest all the way along, or was it simply extraordinarily incompetent all the way along? It must be one or the other. The Australian people will judge it at the next election. They will decide that Government members, whether they are liars or fools, deserve to be thrown out, and out they will go. Mr Scholes —And your gold bricks are starting to look awfully tarnished too. You had better get back to smearing dying men. Mr Spender —I take a point of order. I seek a withdrawal from the Minister for Territories, who is at the table, who said that I should get back to smearing dying men. As he should know, I have never done so, and if he has the least honesty, he will admit it. He should withdraw the remark. Mr Scholes —I withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member for North Sydney has made his point. The Minister has withdrawn. Mr KENT(Hotham)(12.41) —After listening to the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), I look forward to the next election with confidence. It will be an easy election to contest because there is nothing opposite to beat. The Government has no opposition in this chamber. That is why there is no serious economic debate in this House. The people who are coming out with some ideas-I do not subscribe to these ideas, and I will deal with them later-are the bosses of those opposite, members of the New Right. Opposition members do nothing in this chamber but parrot that we are having difficulties and so on, but they forget that we inherited most of those difficulties from the previous Howard-Fraser Government. I support the fourth Budget of the Hawke Labor Government. This Budget has been drawn up in a period in which Australia faces economic difficulties of some magnitude. Under the circumstances, it is a fair Budget. I wish to say at the outset that there are some aspects of the Budget that I am not too pleased with, to say the least. I have already clearly expressed my disapproval of the decision to resume uranium sales to France, so I will not comment any further on this aspect of the Budget, except to say that the French Prime Minister, in his arro- gance, has not shown much gratitude for it. I hope that Cabinet will reverse this decision in the not too distant future. While, as I said earlier, this Budget is a fair one under the circumstances, it can be said that it is fairer to some than to others. Admittedly, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has, with the implementation of some parts of the tax package, cut out some of the perks used by executives and others in privileged positions to avoid taxes. In this way, the system has been cleaned up from some long-standing tax rorts and loopholes. Nevertheless, this Budget calls for sacrifices by workers, pensioners, migrants and the poor. I am sure that these sections of the community are willing to carry the burden of these hard times if the load is shared equally. However, the question is whether the sacrifices are in fact equally forthcoming. While we are calling on all Australians to tighten their belts, the corporate sector is making record profits. Let me read a few recent headlines and reports: Peko profit surges 85% Peko lifted profit from $27.24 million, with directors saying the group's operations were now benefiting appreciably from the devaluation of the Australian dollar TNT profit jumps to $106 million Worldwide transport group TNT has smashed through the $100 million barrier with a 40.2 per cent rise in profit . . . Bonus tip as Bond soars to 100 million Bond Corporation has foreshadowed a one-for-five bonus issue after a 10-month contribution from Castlemaine Tooheys enabled it to announce a 391 per cent profit increase for the year to 30 June That is an increase of 391 per cent in 12 months. The list continues: ICI acquires US Zirconia operation ICI recorded a substantially improved profit to June 1986 of $23.7 million ($19.7 million previously) MIM profit revival tops expectations In a dramatic reversal of trading fortunes, MIM Holdings Limited has exceeded most broker expectations by reporting a $75.6 million pre-tax profit for 1985-86, a turn-around of $126.1 million on last year's crisis loss. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 101a. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The honourable member for Hotham will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I wish to advise the House of the following ministerial arrangements. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) will be absent from Australia from today until 8 October on government business. During his absence, the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) will act as the Minister for Foreign Affairs until 25 September and the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) will act as Minister for Foreign Affairs from that date until Mr Hayden's return. As a matter of courtesy, I should also advise the House that the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and the Attorney-General will not be at Question Time today. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) will respond to any questions relating to the defence portfolio, and the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) will respond to any questions relating to the Attorney-General's portfolio. So that the House can be assured that the country is in the very best of hands, I will respond to any foreign affairs questions. Mr MACPHEE —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of yesterday's Caucus committee decision to reject the Government's regional television restructuring plan, will the Prime Minister confirm categorically that the regional commercial television policy announced by the Minister for Communications will be implemented without modification? Mr HAWKE —I always welcome questions from the honourable member for Goldstein, and I would say this to him: Both the equalisation of regional television services and the revision of ownership and control are still under active consideration by the Government, in consultation with all affected interests. Responses to our draft indicative plan are still being sought so that legitimate concerns can be properly analysed and taken into account in finalising our plans for the industry. Our policy will reflect the fullest possible consultation and the best interests of the consumers and the industry. Mr SNOW —Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware of reports that the community employment program feral animal campaign has been criticised as being a wasteful and inappropriate project for the rural people of Queensland? Will the Minister report on the benefits of this project to rural Queenslanders and all Australians? Mr KERIN —First, I would like to say that no member of this House takes greater interest in the whole question of feral animals than does the honourable member for Eden-Monaro. It is due to his efforts that the graziers in the southern Monaro are very happy with what is being done there by my Department, partly in liaison with the Commonwealth employment program. We are putting in place measures that would assist if there were ever to be an outbreak of exotic diseases in this country. Feral animals may be bearers of those diseases. The honourable gentleman asked about Queensland. As the House will know, there is about to be an election there. Apparently the Parliament is sitting, which is pretty rare. Mr Turner, the Minister of Primary Industries, seems to think that the best way in which he can dignify proceedings is to snap out at any issue and try to blame the Federal Government or the Labor Party. I am a bit disappointed, because the reports relate to statements made by the Queensland Minister for Primary Industries in response to a joint announcement by me and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations about a CEP-funded feral animal control project beginning in Charleville. He described the Commonwealth's commitment as `callous contempt for rural areas'. That simply shows the Queensland Government's poor understanding of the problems facing rural Australia, and a lack of familiarity by Ministers of the operation of their own government and, in fact, departments. I do not need to remind members here of the benefits of feral animal control. The honourable member for Gwydir is very concerned about feral pigs in his electorate, for example. The productivity of our rural resource base is at risk if an outbreak of exotic disease, such as rabies, Newcastle disease or avian influenza were to occur. An exotic disease preparedness program has been developed by the Commonwealth, in consultation with the States, and the CEP national feral animal control campaign was designed to complement the preparedness program and to utilise CEP moneys. The Commonwealth Government has contributed $112,900 of CEP money, and nine people are employed in the Charleville region to improve existing barrier fences. The silliness of Mr Turner's criticisms is that this project was suggested, and is supervised and partially funded by the Queensland Government. The CEP national feral animal campaign was initiated by me. In 1985 I wrote to my State and Territory counterparts responsible for vertebrate pest matters seeking their views on possible projects. The then Queensland Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police, Mr Glasson, responded positively by convening a State co- ordinating committee through the Stock Routes and Rural Lands Protection Board of his Department. Representatives on this committee included the Queensland State Department of Primary Industries-that is, Mr Turner's Department-and it recommended Charleville as a priority area. The proposal was considered by the Commonwealth-State Vertebrate Pest Committee, the secretary of which is provided by Mr Turner's Department of Primary Industries. The Queensland Rural Lands Protection Board is acting as the agent of the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industry for the operation of the project, and it has made a $55,000 contribution to the project. Once again, in that very corrupt State, a Minister of that minority, ratbag government in Queensland has been damned by his own mouth. Mr HOWARD —I ask the Prime Minister: Given the fact that it is now football finals time, will he confirm that football clubs employing professional players will be subject to fringe benefits tax on non-cash prizes, such as best and fairest awards and end-of-season trips? Does the Prime Minister agree that the imposition of such a tax on clubs is a tax on incentive and the achievements of young Australian sportsmen? Mr HAWKE —All that I can say is that the Leader of the Opposition seems to be intent on giving me free kicks all the time. His question is one for the Treasurer. If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to direct a question as to the administration of the tax law he should address it to the Treasurer and I am sure the Treasurer will have the appropriate answer for him. I would simply say this: If the honourable gentleman wants to direct his attention to the action of this Government in regard to sport, to the benefit that this Government has given to sporting organisations and the top sportsmen and women and also to the opportunities for ordinary young Australians to participate in sport, he will see that this Government can have considerable pride in its record. It is universally recognised in Australia that no government in the history of this country has done more for sport than has the Hawke Labor Government. Mr TICKNER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Housing and Construction. In the light of the support given by this Government to the Australian housing industry and the importance of the industry to the Australian economy, can the Minister comment on the current state of that industry? Mr WEST —The three major wins for the housing industry in the Budget illustrate that this Government has given housing the highest priority for the immediate future. Those three major wins have been the introduction of the interest rate subsidy to savings banks, the retention of the first home owners scheme and the very strong direction of Federal funding, which has underpinned a very strong public housing effort by the various State Governments. The results from these major actions have been very pleasing. As far as savings bank lending is concerned-these are forward figures-for July and August the savings banks lent at a rate equal to $7,000m a year. That is almost double the lending rate of earlier this year. With regard to savings bank deposit growth, we have seen an 11 per cent increase in the year to July, and this compares very favourably indeed with a 1.5 per cent increase in savings bank deposits in the year to March. As a result of these two factors, approvals for new dwellings increased 5 per cent in the three months to July. This follows the downturn that occurred earlier this year. So the prospect for the immediate future is a moderate increase in housing activity. If I have a concern in the housing industry area, I suppose it is the effect of the 15.5 per cent interest rate for new loans from savings banks, particularly upon first home seekers, who are on lower incomes. In this context I say to the House that it is quite important for first home seekers, and indeed the housing industry, that general interest rates come down following the stabilisation that has occurred over the last few weeks. I remind the House that we have the right, tight fiscal and wages policies in place to ensure that this occurs over the next few months. To assist further, particularly with regard to low income earners, the Government has taken several actions which will benefit low income earners when they are seeking a housing loan. The first, as I have already mentioned, is that we have retained the first home owners scheme, which provides a lump sum and an interest rate subsidy over five years for the low income housing loan seeker. Furthermore, we have urged the savings banks to promote and publicise low start loans. They are quite important in the short term because they allow the low income home loan seekers to start their repayments on the basis of about 10 or 11 per cent over the first couple of years instead of a 15.5 per cent repayment rate. So we have been urging the banks to promote those low start loans and to publicise them and I am pleased to report to the House that the banks have been doing that. So, the outlook for the housing industry for the months ahead is moderately encouraging but the precise level of housing commencements will very much depend upon the future level of general interest rates and their consequential effect upon housing interest rates. Mr BLUNT —My question is to the Minister for Social Security. I ask: Considering that the basis of the Government's crackdown on social security fraud and the increased investigative measures, is the Minister aware that his Department's field officers have no legislative authority to investigate cases of fraud and overpayment? Does the Minister intend to change the legislation to provide specific authority, in the light of his belated recognition of social security fraud and overpayment? Mr HOWE —It is quite extraordinary that since the honourable member for Richmond has been the shadow spokesman for Social Security he has not made a single statement anywhere outside this House that I can find and very few statements whatever with respect to any aspect of social security policy. Given all the issues that are available in relation to social security, given all the possible questions and all the areas that might be pursued by anyone seriously interested in social policy in this country, I think that is quite incredible. If I may say so, the shadow spokesman is something of a grub, if I can put it that way. Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will withdraw that comment. Mr HOWE —I will withdraw that term and substitute the term `parasite' because the honourable member for Richmond-- Opposition members-Withdraw, withdraw. Mr Sinclair —Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I ask that the honourable gentleman withdraw that allusion to my colleague. Madam SPEAKER —He did withdraw it. Mr Sinclair —I ask that the honourable gentleman withdraw that allusion to my colleague. Madam SPEAKER —Which one? The Minister will withdraw both terms. Mr HOWE —I withdraw. Let me say that if there is a preoccupation by the honourable member it is to lurk around the furthest extremes of the Department of Social Security in an attempt to pick up any piece of information he can, so that he can advocate a piece of administrative reform which is already under way in the Department of Social Security. There has not been a single occasion on which the honourable member for Richmond has come into this House and suggested an area of reform in relation to administration that is not already under way. I make no apology for this Government in terms of what it has been about in social security administration. No government has done more than this Government with respect to restricting the level of overpayments and attacking fraud. No government has introduced more measures in a single year to reduce overpayments and cases in which people are paid a payment to which they are not entitled and to reduce fraud than has this Government. I find it especially ironic that the honourable member for Richmond should continue with this attack, given his position in relation to the identity card. This honourable member, this leech over here in the Opposition, who would attach himself to any-- Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I cannot hear the Minister when he turns away. Mr Howard —I take a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday you dealt, with great respect, in the view of many members of the Opposition very peremptorily and severely with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. We have the spectacle of a Minister deliberately and calculatedly using offensive terms of my colleague. I want to say to you, Madam Speaker, that it is simply not good enough to admonish the Minister in a smiling fashion for merely turning his back. Everybody heard what he said. I think in the interests of fair treatment to people on both sides of the House you should deal as severely with the Minister for Social Security as you did with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Throw him out? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will withdraw the offensive term. Mr HOWE —I withdraw. Madam SPEAKER —Thank you, and the Minister will cease using offensive terms. Mr HOWE —Perhaps we might return to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition at a later stage this afternoon. For the moment I will return to the point I was making. For someone who has constantly returned to this question of fraud and overpayment, it is quite extraordinary that the honourable member for Richmond should oppose, and vigorously oppose, if I may say so, at any opportunity he gets one of the central measures that has been taken by this Government in relation to fraud, not only in the social security system but in the very much larger area of taxation. I think one has a right to feel some anger about the kinds of activities the honourable member has been engaged him. Indeed, I believe that any examination of his record since he has occupied that shadow portfolio would indicate that he has no concern at all for people who are receiving social security payments and he has even less genuine concern for restricting fraud and overpayments. Of course I am concerned that field officers, and indeed everyone in the Department who is responsible for the administration and integrity of the social security system, should have the necessary powers to undertake that task. As I have suggested, this Government has put considerable resources into this area. It has spent about $200m in capital funds to establish a computerised data system within the Department that will help us here. It represents one of the most significant data systems of its type anywhere in the world. When we introduce that sort of technology, we must ensure that it can be used effectively and that people have the right authority and power. No suggestion has been put to me that the field office does not have the necessary power. Within the Budget we have taken a number of very significant measures. In certain areas we have increased substantially the staff of the Department of Social Security. It is about time that the honourable member for Richmond lifted himself up out of the morass and addressed himself to some of the fundamental questions that face us as this country goes through extremely difficult times. Mr SIMMONS —Members on both sides of the House have hardly failed to notice the complete failure of the Opposition to raise matters relating to the economy this week. Madam SPEAKER —Order! To which Minister is the honourable member addressing his question? Mr SIMMONS —I indicate that my question is addressed to the Prime Minister, Madam Speaker. I was making the point that the Opposition has hardly raised any matters relating to the economy. Can the Prime Minister-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Will the honourable member please get to his question. Mr SIMMONS —Can the Prime Minister, in the context of explaining the Government's economic strategy, find a reasonable explanation for this? Mr HAWKE —I am not surprised at all at the failure of the Opposition to address itself to the question of the economy, and for two reasons. First, it is almost universally recognised that this Government has adopted a strategy which is appropriate- Mr Sinclair —On a point or order, Madam Speaker, I suggest that the question is not in order. It relates to an opinion about the degree to which the Opposition has raised policy in the Parliament, and that is quite outside the constraint that applies to questions that may be asked by honourable members. I suggest, Madam Speaker, that it is entirely out of order. Madam SPEAKER —I do not think that the question is out of order. Mr HAWKE —There are two reasons why we have had this deafening silence from the Opposition. First, there is virtually universal recognition of the appropriateness of the Government's economic strategy. Secondly, the Opposition is appalled when it comes to look at the comparison between its pitiful record and the Government's magnificent achievements. So that I can give substance to those observations, may I take the opportunity briefly of turning to a number of specific areas of economic performance of this Government and make comparisons with that of its predecessor, particularly in the most recent period of its tenure of the treasury bench? First, I turn to economic growth. In the last year of the previous Government, the year ended March 1983, real gross domestic product fell by 0.5 per cent. Over the three years of this Labor Government the average annual GDP growth has been 4.7 per cent. There is the comparison on the central issue of growth. Let us go to jobs next, which I assume are regarded by everybody as centrally important. What was the previous Government's record? Over the last year of that Government the number of unemployed increased by 254,000 and 186,000 jobs disappeared. The unemployment rate in the last month of the previous Government was 9.9 per cent. Throughout the seven years of that Government, what was its total job creation? The answer is 362,000 jobs in seven years, compared with 625,000 in just three and a half years under Labor. There we have economic growth and jobs. Let us consider inflation, another centrally important indicator. In the last year of the previous Government, the year ended March 1983, the inflation rate was 11.5 per cent compared with the year ended March 1982. That compares with an inflation rate of 8.4 per cent for 1985-86. Let us go to labour costs. In 1982 average earnings under the previous Government, with the present Leader of the Opposition as the economic helmsman, rose by 16.5 per cent against the average of the rest of the world of 6.5 per cent. That was its performance. In its last year in office here, 1985, there was an increase in earnings in Australia of 6.2 per cent, compared with about 4.6 per cent in the rest of the world. If we look at the increase in real average earnings, what happened under the policy of the people who now form the Opposition during their last three years in government? What happened to earnings? Real earnings rose by 9.2 per cent. That is what happened under the people who talk about containing costs. In three years, earnings increased by 9.2 per cent. In our last three years they have fallen by 4.2 per cent. That is reflected in the fact that in March 1983 real unit labour costs were 6.6 per cent higher than they are now. Let us go to profit share. Opposition members are the people who are supposed to be looking after the interests of the business community, but what are the facts on profit share? In the year ended December 1982 the gross operating surplus as a percentage of gross non-farm product was 12.1 per cent. That was the lowest level since the figures started being collected in 1967. Since March 1983, since this Government has been in office, the profit share has averaged 13.8 per cent. Let us look at industrial disputation. In the seven years of the previous Government, what was the number of working days lost per 1,000 employees? It was 588.6 per 1,000 which was 119 per cent higher than the figure of 268 working days lost per 1,000 employees. Let us come to the question of interest rates. What are the comparative performances on interest rates? In April 1982 the 90-day bank bill rate reached 22 per cent, which was two percentage points higher than at any time during the Labor Government. What was the 10-year long term bond rate? In June 1982 it was 16 per cent, one per cent higher than at any time during the period of this Government in office. That is the Opposition's record on interest rates. Let us look at manufacturing. The index of manufacturing production seasonally adjusted hit its lowest level in the March quarter of 1983 since the start of the series in 1976. Let us look at international competitiveness. In 1981-82 Australia's international competitiveness was at its worst for six years, having deteriorated steadily over those years. Australia's international competitiveness now is at its best level since the 1960s. Finally, let us look at the current account deficit as a proportion of GDP. In 1981-82, the current account deficit was 6 per cent of GDP, the highest since 1951-52, and higher than at any time since 1981-82. It is no wonder that Opposition members leave the chamber. It is no wonder that on the record of that performance the people of Australia made them leave this side of the House. The people sent them out because the people knew that this Government would do better. It has done better, and it will continue to do so. As distinct from the voluntary exodus of Opposition members at this point, when the people of Australia are next given their chance, very many more of them will be making an exit, and it will not be voluntary. Mr SHARP —Is the Special Minister of State aware that officers of the Australian Federal Police who investigated the delivery of the new and very dangerous drug called crack to a suburban post office were not given sufficient overtime to allow them to keep a 24 hour watch on the post office boxes and, in fact, had to limit their surveillance to between the hours of 6 a.m. and 5 p.m.? Is it true that due to budgetary constraints Australian Federal Police overtime for this current financial year will be exhausted by Christmas? How do these limitations on our number one drug enforcement agency stand, in light of the Government's promises of increased law enforcement action through the drug offensive? Mr YOUNG —The Government, as in so many other areas of government administration, is proud of its record of what it has done in the AFP. In fact, when the Prime Minister opened the new headquarters of the Association this morning, some very glowing tributes were paid by members of the Australian Federal Police to this Government, which has realised that something had to be done, after so many years during the Fraser Administration when absolutely nothing was done. Manpower in the AFP has risen by 21 per cent under this Government. Over 500 new police have been added to the force since we were elected in March 1983. Last week I visited the eastern region, in which the incident referred to by the honourable member took place, for a briefing with Mr McCabe, who is in charge of that region. There are approximately 500 police in the eastern region, working out of Redfern. Of that number, 128 are trainees-people who have just completed the recruiting course. Quite frankly, the senior police officers would not have the facilities or the time to supervise more trainees than they are being given in that region at the moment. In the operation referred to there was the suspicion that a quantity of the drug referred to as `crack' in the newspapers was being sent through the mail. According to the analyst, to which it was sent, there might have been some doubt as to what type of drug it was. Nevertheless, the analyst would not argue with the description that it has been given overseas, now that he has looked at it. What the police do and what they do not do with the resources that are made available to them is that subject of a police decision. Honourable members will notice that in the Budget Papers there was no cutting of the resources made available to the AFP. How the police will use those resources on any occasion is a police decision. They do not come to my office and say: `Will we keep an eye on this mail box from nine to five or from one to two, or will this take priority over other things?'. I also discussed with them their overtime budget. It is a fact that on a pro rata basis they have already spent more than they would have expected to spend, because of some of their problems. This is a very serious question. I know that the previous Government was not very interested in it, but we are. There are many problems connected with what people are trying to do. Mr Cadman —Come on. This could be the worst thing that could happen to Australia-this drug. Mr YOUNG —The honourable member did not ask the question. Although he is a dummy and he is not interested in the matter, the honourable member who asked the question may be interested, because he talks to me frequently about these sorts of problems. Perhaps he is not inviting the honourable member to interject. Perhaps he would like the honourable member to take the afternoon off, which is what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has done. The police are asked to look into very serious problems in terms of drugs or in terms of the question answered earlier by my colleague about social security fraud, and the number of people involved in that area. All major social security fraud is investigated by the AFP. The surveillance of people entering this country who are suspected of trafficking in drugs is very labour intensive. It takes up a great deal of the manpower of the police to carry out some of those operations. If the senior police think that one operation is more important than another, that is a decision they must make, based on the resources available to them. But they are more than pleased with the way in which we have implemented our policies. Of course, there will be people in the community and in the police force who say that more should be given. But in the context of the way in which this Budget was framed, and some of the pain that people, including pensioners and others, had to suffer, what we have done for the law enforcement agencies in this country is something that should have been done a long time ago. In addition to the 21 per cent increase in manpower to the AFP, honourable members should not forget that this year the National Crime Authority will cost us over $12m. Coastal surveillance has been added to the Australian Federal Police at a cost of over $3m. We now have 12 liaison officers of the AFP situated around the world. So if one looks at what we have done in these areas and the impact we are having on criminal activity, up to and including the drug scene, it has had a very major impression on what has taken place in Australia. We do not offer a panacea to overcome all the problems, because people who want to bring drugs into this country will always find new ways of doing it, but it is becoming increasingly difficult for them to do it. The detection of this so-called crack involved about 2.5 grams of the drug which was detected in four letters that came through the post office. That shows the more specific ways which the police and Customs people are adopting to detect these things. Of course, people who traffic in drugs are also very clever. We do not expect that we will ever reach the stage of saying: `Yes, we have solved all of those problems'. Nor should we say, as some of the papers suggest, that we will be subjected to the same horrific social problems in relation to drugs that occur in other countries. The same prediction was made about cocaine in Australia, and it has not occurred. We are putting great emphasis on other areas, apart from enforcement. My colleague the Minister for Health would agree that we must impress on people the value of education in this area. People should be educated about the danger of drugs. It should not be left to the policeman at the end of the road to try to overcome all the problems. Education and the rehabilitation of drug addicts are very important aspects of what we must do. So $100m is going into the drug offensive. There is a 21 per cent increase in the manpower of the AFP. Over $12m is going to the National Crime Authority and over $3m to coastal surveillance. When one looks at that record and compares it with what happened during the 7 1/2 years of the Fraser Government, members of the Opposition should hang their heads in shame. Mr Lamb having addressed a question to the Treasurer- Mr Coleman-Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. The subject of this question is the same as that of question No. 4586 which has been placed on the Notice Paper by the honourable member for Brisbane, although it has been put in my name in error. Madam SPEAKER —I thank the honourable member for Wentworth. The question is out of order. Mr MILES —My question is directed to the Minister for Communications. In previous years, people in rural areas that are served only by Australian Broadcasting Corporation television have been given the opportunity to view the Victorian Football League grand final through arrangements with the commercial channel holding the rights to cover the match. The VFL final is a national event and many people in more isolated areas of Australia, such as King Island, which is in the electorate of Braddon, have appreciated the arrangements made in previous years. Will all of those people have the same opportunity this year? If not, why not? Which regions, if any, will miss out? Mr DUFFY —As the honourable member is probably aware, the problem of obtaining coverage of a sporting event such as the VFL grand final, the Melbourne Cup or any other significant sporting event, has always been a considerable problem for successive governments. The main reason for that is the question of exclusive rights over sporting events. In the past-particularly last year and from memory I think the year before-the commercial station was prepared to make arrangements for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to pick up the coverage of the events to which the honourable member referred in the areas where it did not transmit. At that time one of the very difficult areas was, from memory, King Island. There were difficulties with translators and one thing and another. In the few days before the grand final, through a series of representations made from King Island and other parts of Tasmania to both the ABC, through my office, and the Department of Communications, arrangements were put in place and the grand final was covered. At this stage I have not heard what arrangements have been made this year. I appreciate the matter being drawn to my attention. I will set in train investigations to see which areas, if any, will be adversely affected. Mr LAMB —Can the Treasurer inform the House of the impact of the income tax changes introduced by the Hawke Government and compare them with recent suggestions for tax change by the Opposition? Mr KEATING —The record of the Government in terms of the tax cuts being applied in the current financial year and in the beginning of the next financial year are by now well known to the House. I think we have again reached a very serious impasse on what one may term the honesty of politics. In a speech in Narrabri on Saturday, 13 September, the Deputy Leader of the National Party stated: By the adoption of the National Party's single income tax rate we can restore incentive and boost productivity. A flatter tax rate is our immediate goal. The marginal tax rate of 47.25 per cent now applied to the average wage can be nearly halved without unduly disrupting Government revenue. This would have to be accompanied by taxation below the threshold but with a rebate system for those in the lower income range. This is very much the technique of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition says that he will not have a bar of a flat rate income tax while the National Party parades around all the country centres putting a tax proposal which is not endorsed, or claimed not to be endorsed, by the Leader of the Opposition. I notice the Deputy Leader of the National Party sitting back smirking and thinking that it is a clever ploy. It is rank dishonesty. The Government stands by every one of its tax proposals, explains them and pays for them in the tax system. The National Party's proposal does not suggest what honourable members opposite would like it to. It means that the Opposition would like the majority of Australian taxpayers to pay more so that the minority of wealthy income taxpayers would pay less. If there were a tax rate of 25 per cent from zero for every $1 earned, everyone below average weekly earnings would pay more tax because he would lose the tax-free threshold. It would mean that the 25 per cent rate would not be the marginal rate of tax; it would in fact be the average rate of tax. It would mean an increase in tax for fully 75 per cent of Australian taxpayers, and 60 per cent of taxpayers would have their after-tax incomes cut by up to $16 per week or 15 per cent of lower income taxpayers would have their after-tax incomes cut by at least 20 per cent. It is simply a cynical attempt to shift the tax burden from the 25 per cent of top income tax earners to the 75 per cent of lower income tax earners. Whenever these things are said they are not rebutted by the Leader of the Opposition. Let me repeat, for the benefit of the House, what he said as Treasurer when this proposal was floated by the National Party. In 1981 the following was reported: 80 per cent of Australia's workers would be forced on to a higher tax scale if the National Party's flat tax proposal was introduced, the Federal Treasurer, Mr Howard, said yesterday. The 20 per cent flat rate suggested by the Nationals would cause a shortfall of $7,000m in Government revenue in the first year. That was reported in the Canberra Times on 5 February 1981. On 7 February the Leader of the Opposition was reported as saying: Flat tax fairyland . . . The proposals would unfairly and severely disadvantage those in the community least able to afford a massive taxation increase. I repeat, the words `least able to afford a massive taxation increase'. The article continued: `Whatever may be the superficial attraction it may have for some people it simply does not work', he said. It has the element of the fairyland about it. That is exactly the same proposal put forward by exactly the same people-members of the National Party-around rural Australia. It is now no longer being denied by the Leader of the Opposition, who replies to the Budget by saying `This is the status of this promise and that is the status of that promise', but who realises that the National Party is misrepresenting the Opposition and there is no prospect, in his terms, of this proposal being introduced into law. Yet the National Party is on a campaign of duping and misleading most farmers and farm communities in this respect, making the point that, with farm incomes down, most farmers would be disadvantaged by this proposal, that most farmers would actually pay more tax. The likelihood is that most farmers would be affected by the $16 to $20 a week drop in income from this proposal while the National Party puts the proposal for wealthy people in the cities, as it has always put proposals for wealthy people in the cities. Let us hear from the Leader of the Opposition this time what he thinks of the flat tax fairyland, what he thinks about the proposal being too costly and what he thinks about it not working. Let him have the decency to state his policy on behalf of the Opposition. Let him make it quite clear to the Parliament whether he endorses or repudiates the National Party's policy. Let him make it quite clear whether or not the speech of the honourable member for Gwydir has status in the Opposition's rank of policies. Let him endorse it or repudiate it. 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 Andrew,Mr Blunt,Mr John Brown,Mr Robert Brown,Mr Cadman,Mr Ian Cameron,Mr Conquest,Mr Cowan,Mr Dobie,Mr Downer,Mr Drummond,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Peter Fisher,Mr Fitzgibbon,Mr Hollis,Mr Hawker,Mr Kent,Mr McArthur,Ms Mayer,Mr Ian Robinson,Mr Slipper,Mr Tickner,Mr Tuckey and Dr Watson. 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 N.A. Brown,Mr Duncan,Mr Hawker,Mr Kent,Mr McArthur and Ms Mayer. 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 per cent in their real value since May 1976; the abolition of family allowances for dependents who have turned 18, even those still at school; the abolition of concessional tax rebates for education and other expenses. That this erosion in horizontal tax equity has placed an intolerable financial burden on many larger families, particularly those on middle incomes who fail to qualify for means-tested benefits such as TEAS but whose living standards are now well below average due to heavy expenses on necessities such as education, housing, food and clothing. Your petitioners humbly pray that: family allowances be restored to the 1976 value (in real terms), and indexed according to the CPI; the dependent spouse rebate be retained; the Federal Government take urgent measures to restore equitable provisions in the taxation system through the introduction of family income splitting. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Beale and Mr N.A. Brown. 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% in the Family Allowance benefit to return it to 11.5% of the Average Award Wage (making it similar in value to the 11.5% of the Basic Wage when Child Endowment was first introduced by the Chifley Government in 1941). 4. retention of the Dependent Spouse Rebate and the amount of the Dependent Spouse Rebate adjusted so that it is equal in value to the tax-free threshold allowed when calculating taxable income. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack-itself the creation of three Christian crosses-represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth. (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian national flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum.'' And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Hawker and Mr Reith. 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 Scott and Mr Tickner. 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 changes 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. 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 are gravely concerned about recent changes 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 Drummond. 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 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. 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 other related test in accordance with the said Regulations. Your petitioners humbly pray that you will give this matter your earnest consideration and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hayden and Mr Keogh. 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: We the undersigned residents of Australia totally reject any move to cut funding to Australia-wide English as a second language programs in schools. We request that the Australian government restore funding to the 1985 level in the 1986-87 Budget. by Mr Ruddock and Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 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 the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the Fringe Benefits Tax is an iniquitous and unjust impost which will further damage the Australian economy and further increase costs to employers. The tax will: (1) further increase the level of unemployment; (2) increase the administrative costs and overheads for business and Government; (3) particularly disadvantage small businesses and farmers; and (4) act as a disincentive to those who are the most productive and skilled; and we the undersigned call upon the Government to immediately repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. 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 Sharp. To the Honourable the Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth the legislation to tax fringe benefits is iniquitous, inequitable and unfair. Your petitioners humbly pray that you do not proceed with the legislation. by Mr Beale. To the Honourable the Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concern to Australian citizens asks that: 1. The Australian government exert pressure on Moscow to- a. Allow the International Atomic Energy Commission full expert investigation of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster and its human consequences; b. Allow Australian Ukrainians to send medical aid to family and friends in Soviet Ukraine; and, c. Allow free communication between Australian and Soviet Ukrainians. 2. The Australian Government- a. Launch a public appeal to help the Chernobyl victims; b. Support the removal of Russian nuclear weapons out of Ukraine; c. Support the decolonization of the USSR so that captive nations like Ukraine and the Baltic states are not exploited for Soviet Russian nuclear purposes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the Bill of Rights is not supported by the people of Australia, and calls on the Government to delay proclamation of the Bill until all matters of contention are settled by national referenda, and that: (1) Matters of States rights, property rights, rights of the newborn, the right not to belong to unions, among other issues, have not been submitted to the people of Australia to decide, and that; (2) No Australian Bill of Rights should depend on any foreign convention for its basis in Australian law. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That we the citizens of the Illawarra Region condemn the decision to close the Wollongong office of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and that we respectfully request that this decision be reversed immediately. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That many Australian wage and salary earners and self-employed persons do not enjoy secure retirement incomes provided by superannuation; and That the Government issued in December 1985 Guidelines for the implementation of the proposed productivity decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and draft Operational Standards for Superannuation schemes. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. Guarantees to every employee the right and freedom to select the superannuation scheme of his/her choice. 2. Protects the individual exercising that freedom of choice from any coercion, influence or other pressure which may be applied by any employer, association or trade union. 3. Will recognise only those schemes which provide genuine superannuation and reject those schemes which do not provide for- preservation of benefits to retirement vesting of employer contributions on a reasonable sliding scale equal employer and employee Trusteeship control to ensure security of investments. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned, plead that Parliament becomes aware that the Public has no legal right to influence the setting of Standards for Television Programming, that we deplore the new Standards which came into force on 1st February, and that we call on Parliament to amend the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942, section 16 (2), so that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, when determining Television Standards, and screening hours, shall consult with the Australian people: because at present the Tribunal is compelled by law to consult only with television stations on these matters, because the new Standards are a result of such consultation, and have already been implemented without public discussion, because the new Standards are ambiguous, and without definition, because the new Standards are composed of modifying terms which circumvent the proscriptions, because the media is only motivated by aspirations of pecuniary superiority, because, in contrast, the public is only motivated by their wish to exercise pastoral care over the nurturing home environment of their children, because we believe that the Standards wrongly ascribe extreme importance to``the storyline'' of a film screened, because we believe that the Standards wrongly ascribe total unimportance to the effects of viewing, especially violent films, on the young, the impressionable, the immature, the unstable, or the socially disadvantaged, because we refuse to accept the media-imposed assessment of community standards, and because we wish to impart our demand to be consulted, our demand to have legal status in decision-making, and the right to counsel those whose decisions so deeply affect our homes. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter your earnest attention. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Government should cancel the Fringe Benefits Tax they intend to impose on businesses throughout Australia because: 1. The tax discriminates against charitable organisations, sports clubs, private schools and religious organisations: 2. The tax will mean employees around Australia will suffer reductions in their remuneration packages: 3. The Bill places another impossible burden of paperwork on small business: 4. The Bill is absurd in its application to Government employees, who now constitute 32% of the workforce. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament House. The petition of certain citizens 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 Maranoa electorate respectfully showeth that: The current 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 Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal system of Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Forces, the State and Federal education systems, the independence of the churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children, the unborn, the handicapped, the aged and the infirm, employer and employee relationships and Australian society generally. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to repeal the Bill of Rights legislation forthwith. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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 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 the undersigned residents of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Socialist Government should; pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices; not increase or extend fuel taxes; and maintain its tax cut commitment. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Socialist Government should not continue to rob the taxpayers of Australia by failing to pass on the fuel tax cuts due under the Import Parity Pricing system. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia 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 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 rights 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: 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 is kept operational and fully staffed. by Mr Hollis. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of citizens of Australia shows that: Approximately 100,000 Australians live on the verge of homelessness, dependent on Government resources to survive, or sleep out of doors or in refuges. Over 700,000 households, or in excess of 2 million Australians, are living below the poverty line after paying their rent or mortgage costs. In addition, there are thousands of households with special needs, such as the disabled, who are not well catered for in the private sector but who nevertheless require suitable housing. Waiting lists for public housing have almost doubled in the past five years to 146,000 by June 1985. The list is expected to grow to some 250,000 by 1990. We therefore ask that the Australian Government, as a highest priority undertake a campaign to bring the issue of poverty and, in particular, housing-related poverty, to the attention of the Australian public increase expenditure on public housing through the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement, by at least 15% annually in real terms increase rent relief payments for those on low incomes in the private rental market use its influence with State and Territory governments to encourage them to increase their expenditures on public housing. by Mr Jenkins. 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 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 the 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 3EA 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. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we strongly oppose the introduction of the `Australian 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 the 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 leader and members of the House of Representatives of Australia: The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully shows that there has been clear demonstration of public dissatisfaction with mismanagement of the Otway forests in Victoria, and we pray that: The Constitution of Australia be reformed to recognise significant public expressions of concern, eg petitions by some action, eg referendums or committees of inquiry. by Mr McArthur. 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 President and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's proposal to bring about a reduction in the amount payable under the present Family Allowance Scheme, that the House of Representatives assembled oppose such a move, on the evidence of its impact upon the family unit. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek to restore payments to the former level. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable 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 Parliaments of Australia, its States and Territories, to take all measures within their powers to reduce the burden of imposed costs and regulation, allowing Australian horticultural growers to develop production potential so the nation, as a whole, can share the benefits of the resulting growth and prosperity. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled and, to the Australian Government. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out that a comprehensive ban on all nuclear weapon tests in all environments for all time would be a vital first step towards- inhibiting the addition of more and more sophisticated and destabilizing nuclear weapons to the world's arsenals; arresting the extension of the arms race to outer space; upholding the provisions of existing treaties and agreements. Your petitioners humbly pray that: 1. The Australian Government-(a) take new initiatives to encourage all member states of the United Nations-especially the governments of nuclear weapon states-to conclude at an early stage a treaty banning all nuclear weapon tests in all environments for all time, (b) call on all nuclear weapon states to declare an immediate moratorium on all nuclear weapon tests pending conclusion of a CTB. 2. All Federal Members of Parliament and Senators make strong representations to the Australian Government to act towards these goals. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth, do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government take the action necessary to create an Australian Republic on or before 1st January, 1988. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600. We your petitioners, humbly showeth: That the wildlife species, in this case-the kangaroo, have a right to exist and flourish independently of human needs. For this reason alone we should not regard the kangaroo as a human resource nor contemplate commercial exploitation simply because more offspring are born each generation than can hope to survive. Permissible cropping rates are unknown and the means of enforcing controls or protective legislation is completely ineffective and inadequate due to the widespread nature of the industry. All Australians have a responsibility to our already declining wildlife. We your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will: (1) ban the exports of products made from kangaroos. (2) take action to see that State governments prohibit the commercial killing of kangaroos. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the wake of the Chernobyl reactor disaster, no nuclear reactor can be considered entirely safe. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government close down the Lucas Heights reactor immediately and permanently, and that no new nuclear reactors be built within Australia. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That they oppose the construction of any additional nuclear reactor at the Australian atomic energy establishment at Lucas Heights in N.S.W., or any site within Australia. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government of Australia will not construct an additional nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights or within Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Sutherland Shire respectfully showeth: That they oppose the construction of any additional nuclear reactor at the Australian atomic energy establishment at Lucas Heights in N.S.W. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government of Australia will not construct an additional nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. 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 Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they strongly support the establishment of the Western Sydney State University as recommended in the Parry Report and call upon the House to establish the Western Sydney State University in conjunction with the New South Wales Government. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the honourable members of the representatives assembly in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned in the State of Queensland respectfully showeth that the film Hail Mary is pornographic and blasphemous and gravely offends our religious beliefs and those of the vast majority of Australian christians. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Parliament will respect the will of the undersigned and have the pornographic and blasphemous film Hail Mary banned in Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Chelsea and District respectfully draws to the attention of the House of our concern at the horrendous accident which occurred at the nuclear power plant in Chernobyl. We feel that unless governments take action to prevent this type of situation re-occurring there will be no-one left to govern. We respectfully point out that the world has existed without nuclear power in the past and we can survive in the future without nuclear technology. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government formulate and enact an anti-nuclear policy, which includes an end to uranium mining in Australia and encourages other nations to dispense with nuclear weapons and power plants. by Mr Charles. 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 earnings or producing assessable income should be allowable deductions. That the proposed Capital Gains Tax is an unwarranted burden on the rural sector, which will severely affect its long-term viability. That the delay by the Government in introducing the legislation into Parliament is causing confusion and hindering farmers in the organisation of their affairs. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government introduces the Capital Gains Tax legislation without delay and that the Australian Democrats join with the Opposition to defeat the proposed legislation. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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 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 of 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 the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher respectfully showeth that: The proposed capital gains tax penalises small business, discourages long-term investment, hinders capital formation and will freeze existing investment patterns and limits the investors' ability to adjust to changed market conditions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to immediately abandon its ill-considered capital gains tax proposal. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Queensland respectfully showeth: That the actions of trade unions have gone beyond their traditional goals of protecting workers conditions and rates of pay and have reached the point where they are seriously affecting the economic health of the nation and the people. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That all Governments throughout Australia acknowledge and protect the Right of Work on behalf of all Australians. 2. That the total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamental requirement of a workable, balanced Federal system of government. 3. That all necessary steps be taken to protect the citizens of Australia from any inducement, compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade union. 4. That there should be no preference in employment for people who are members of trade unions. 5. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 6. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners, as is duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Watson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the division of Forde respectfully showeth: That the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal system in Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Force, the State and Federal education systems, the independence of the churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children, the unborn, the handicapped, the aged and the infirm, employer and employee relationships and Australian society generally. Our petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House defer debate on the Bill for twelve months and circulate the Bill for twelve months for the widest possible debate, scrutiny and discussion. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Watson. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Hawke Government's superficial and ineffective approach to Social Security policy and administration. 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 BLUNT(Richmond)(2.55) —Today the House is going to debate one of the most important policy and administrative issues in Australia, an issue that is regarded as being of paramount importance by every Australian taxpayer and client of the Department of Social Security. Before arguing my case, let me say that I was absolutely amazed and astounded by the answer of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) in Question Time today. I sincerely invite him to respond to this debate on a rational basis, to debate the policy and administrative questions, to attempt to refrain from personal abuse and indulgence in rhetoric and also to recognise that the Hawke Labor Government has been in power since 1983 and must accept responsibility for the present state of the system. There is an absolute failure of policy and administration within the Department of Social Security. Contrary to the public perception of the recent Budget, expenditure has increased by $1.1 billion. We are spending more than ever and doing less good. Later in this debate I will address the question of policy. The Minister for Social Security, who is at the table, is devoid of ideas, directionless and reactionary. He is wedded to the outdated and discredited views of socialism and, amazingly, as the leader of the Left he has been forced to adopt the views of the right wing, to substitute public relations for policies. There is a technique, referred to as the `big lie' technique, which was perpetrated by one of the henchmen of Adolf Hitler, Goebbels. The idea was that if one said something incredible enough and often enough people would believe it. This Government's policy on the control of social security fraud and overpayment is nothing more than a sham, an obvious attempt to mislead the people of Australia and to create the impression that there is effective policy, and that there is a determination to do something about the integrity of the system. But nothing has been done. What we really need in this country are fundamental changes to the principles of administration-not another public relations campaign. Mr Deputy Speaker, let me draw your attention to the comments of the Auditor-General in his most recent report of September 1986, tabled in this House the other day, which deals with audits until 30 June 1986. This is the fourth report of the Auditor-General in succession that has made similar remarks. He is talking about the Department of Social Security and its administration. On Page 134 he says: Previous Report references to unemployment benefits have mentioned control deficiencies in proof of identity, checks with employers and liaison with the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) . . . inadequate evidence of the check that proof of identity requirements had been fulfilled. . . . irregularities in the completion of unemployment benefit continuation forms . . . Previous Reports have referred to deficiencies in respect of pensions entitlement reviews, proof and verification of income, proof of identity and pension processing documentation. The reviews disclosed that separate offices had failed in relation to checking the provision of invalid pensions, the declaration of proof and many other items relating to the administration of those benefits. Everybody has been talking about this problem for many years. The Minister at the table has been responsible for this Department for some time and has done nothing about it. He has even disagreed on occasions with his colleagues. Senator Walsh, the Minister for Finance, has said that there are problems with unemployment benefits, that more people are claiming unemployment benefits than are registered for work with the Commonwealth Employment Service. The initial reaction of the Minister for Society Security was to say that that was not true, that there was no problem. He attempted to explain it away as a statistical discrepancy. What we saw in the recent Budget was an attempt to do something about it. Apparently his colleagues had made him see the light. I fact, when I first saw the Budget Papers I believed that the Minister had seen the light, that he had changed his opinion and was prepared to do something. But, as I have said, nothing has been done. It is little more than a public relations campaign, a con job, a complete farce. I intend to examine the specific anti-fraud and overpayment procedures that were recommended by the Government in this Budget. One of the most significant things, about which the Minister initially said there was no problem, was the payment of unemployment benefits to New Zealanders in Australia. When I raised that issue, his initial statement was that there was no problem and that nothing needed to be done. Within six months he had done an about-face. He announced that he was going to renegotiate the agreement with the New Zealand Government, and in the Budget he announced certain changes. Let me tell honourable members what has really happened. In the Budget the Minister said that there would be a six months qualifying period for New Zealanders to get the unemployment benefit. I refer to page 26 of the National Field Officer Handbook published in January 1986. The Budget came down in August. The handbook states that `New Zealanders must have resided in Australia for six months' before they are eligible for unemployment benefit. Yet this Minister announced in August that that was a new initiative. The handbook, published in January, had that as a requirement. Let me now talk about compulsory registration with the Commonwealth Employment Service. In the August statement the Minister said that this was going to be very necessary in the future. The handbook of the Department of Social Security contains guidelines for unemployment benefit, sickness and special benefits, and a manual of instructions, and it was published by the Australian Government Publishing Service in 1983. At paragraph 5.120 it states: A claimant for unemployment benefit is required to register as unemployed at an office of the CES or with the District Agent of the CES for the district in which he resides. Personal attendance is required. That is in the 1983 version of the manual. In the 1986 August Budget it was said that it was a new initiative. It has always been a requirement to register with the CES. The fact of the matter is that the Minister's Department has not been implementing its own guidelines. The Minister must accept that he is responsible for the activities of his Department, and if the Department has failed to implement its own guidelines he should accept the responsibility for that failure. There is no way that he can avoid that. Mr Donald Cameron —He's a grub. Mr BLUNT —It is a great pity that he does not spend more time reading his own guidelines and ensuring that officers of his Department actually implement the procedures that have been laid down by him and his colleagues and by the senior officers of his Department. The Minister also announced in the Budget that there would be a requirement for personal attendance every 14 days for the lodgment of unemployment benefit forms. The Minister has obviously never seen one of these: This is the 19b form. It is a Department of Social Security claim form. It is green and yellow and it has `DSS' at the top of it. It is an application for continuation of unemployment benefit. It is appropriate to look at some of the questions that are posed on this form. Question 9 asks: Are you still registered as unemployed with the CES? I do not know for how long this form has been in use but it is a lot longer than August 1986. The Minister announced that that registration requirement was going to be part of his new initiative to stop unemployment fraud. Mr Howe —It is not part of the legislation. Mr BLUNT —He says that it is not part of the legislation. Whether it is part of the legislation or not, how is he going to guarantee that officers of his Department are actually going to enforce it? He knows what the relationship between the CES and the Department of Social Security is like. He is also aware that CES operates on a card system. Everybody's details are recorded on a little piece of cardboard and there is no direct interface between Stratplan, which is not going to plan, and the record system of the CES. He is also aware that CES is in the middle of a massive dispute with Wang Computer Pty. Limited over the introduction of the job seeker program and that the effective interface between the two computer systems cannot be predicted with any degree of accuracy. The capacity to match registration statistics with departmental records is a long way off. The fact of the matter is that the Minister should accept responsibility for that administrative incompetence. He has also said that applicants must show up personally when registering for unemployment benefits in order to claim them. This form also requires that it be lodged personally, except in specific cases where there is an exemption. There is a note in big bold capital letters on the bottom of the form: Do not return this form before the date shown on the front. It does not say to post it back or that one's brother or sister or mother can bring it in. It says: `Do not return this form before the date shown'. Why is that requirement there? Because it has always been an implicit part of the system that unemployment beneficiaries will bring this form back and lodge it with the Department as proof of their unemployment. The Minister knows that that has been the requirement, otherwise why is it on this form? The Minister has realised that the people of Australia have had enough of the slack administration of social security under his Government. What happened was that someone in the right wing of the Australian Labor Party, when preparing this Budget, said: `We have to do something about it. We have had the tax summit and we have had Priority One. Let us apply those successful public relations techniques to social security'. So the leader of the left wing in the Cabinet said: `All right, you will not let me implement my policies to spend more and more money, so I will go along with your PR campaign'. They all put their heads together to see what they could do that would sound really great. They got some poor officer of the Department to go through the manual and they said to him: `Pick out all the things that will sound really great when we put them into a Press statement. We will bring them into the House and announce them as new initiatives. We will hope that no one has read the manual, because we certainly have not and the odds are that no one else has read it'. The fact is that the manuals have been in existence for years and the procedures have been there for years. The real problem is that the Minister has not required his Department to comply with its own guidelines. Four separate reports by the Auditor-General have highlighted this failure. As I said previously, this Minister and this Government must acknowledge that they have been in power since March 1983 and they have done nothing to improve the administrative efficiency of the Department of Social Security. What they have done is to spend a lot more money. They have changed a lot of the guidelines. They have probably turned a blind eye to the administration of many of these procedures. They have spent untold billions of taxpayers' dollars to give us the most ineffective social security system in the Western world today. The system is even decried by the Australian Council of Social Service. It must be an embarrassment to the man who is the leader of the Left to have to recognise the social security lobby in this country does not really think that his social security system is important. In the limited time left to me I must address the answer to the question I put to the Minister in Question Time today. That question related to the authority of field officers of the Department of Social Security to investigate fraud and overpayment. The source of this information is the National Field Officer Handbook. On page 73 of the handbook, under the heading `Authority for investigation', it is stated: No section of the Social Security Act directly authorises a Field Officer to conduct investigations. It gets worse: If questioned by a client about your authority-- this is an instruction to a field officer- to question or investigate, you should advise the client that, as a Field Officer, you have been directed by the Department and in particular your Regional Office to gather information. It should also be pointed out that the client . . . is not compelled to . . . answer your verbal questions . . . It goes on to say in great detail exactly what powers exist under the Social Security Act. It continues: Section 135tf of the Social Security Act provides that a person must respond to a written request for information if he/she is able. Quite frankly, how can one have any effective investigative facilities within the Department if the officers of the Department are not empowered to ask questions? I do not believe that any other organisation in Australia, or perhaps the world, would set a task for its investigative officers and not provide the basic authority for them to go and ask questions. One sometimes wonders why the Department bothers to have field officers travelling around the country when they do not have any authority to ask questions. The Department might just as well put the whole thing in the hands of Australia Post and send out notes and see if they get any responses. Quite frankly, the Minister was not even aware that his field officers did not have that authority. He was embarrassed today and he did not know what to do. So he blustered and resorted to personal abuse. He has asked for the opportunity to have a rational debate on social security. I will debate social security with him at any time and any place. The Minister has no policy. Even his suggestion about changes to child maintenance, child support and the collection of maintenance was a public relations statement. There is no timetable, no estimates of cost savings. The whole question of supporting parent benefit in Australia is a disgrace. We spend more money on supporting parent benefit than we do on roads because this man has done nothing to clean up the system. In the remaining seconds left to me I again ask the Minister to resist the temptation to indulge in rhetoric, to recognise his responsibilities and to answer in a civilised and sensible manner some of the questions I posed to him today. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Before I call the Minister for Social Security I point out that during the debate the honourable member for Moreton made a disparaging remark about the Minister for Social Security. I ask him to withdraw the remark. Mr Donald Cameron —I called him a grub because he called the shadow Minister a grub earlier. Just as the Minister withdrew the remark, I will withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Just stand up and withdraw correctly. Mr Donald Cameron —I withdraw. I do not know how more correct I can be. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Good. I call the Minister for Social Security. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(3.11) —The honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) began his remarks by referring to the escalation of social security expenditure under the present Government. I will give the House some figures from 1982-83. The social security budget as a percentage of gross domestic product stood at 7.1 per cent. In 1986 it stands at 6.6 per cent. The social security budget excluding unemployment and sickness benefits in 1982-83 represented 5.5 per cent of GDP. It now represents 5 per cent of GDP. So social security expenditure certainly has not escalated under the present Government. There have been very significant savings. Against Forward Estimates the savings are $500m in this Budget and there are more than a billion dollars of ongoing savings since we have been in government. It suits the honourable member for Richmond and other honourable members opposite to suggest that achieving savings at those levels is simply a matter of the stroke of a pen, or to suggest that it is seen as something less than a full commitment of the Government to establish the tightest administration and to ensure that the dollars spent in social security are spent in a way that is directed towards people with the greatest need. When one talks about administration, it is important to remember that the honourable member for Richmond certainly has not concerned himself with any questions of policy, even though the matter of public importance mentions ineffectiveness in policy and administration. He has made no reference to any policy issues whatsoever. The honourable member for Richmond has rarely commented on policy either in this House or outside it. That is regrettable because if we are talking about 27 per cent of the Federal Budget quite clearly there are major policy questions involved. It is unfortunate that the honourable member has never, either in this House or outside it, addressed himself to a serious policy question. That is a reflection not only on the honourable member but also on the Opposition. The Opposition has found it extraordinarily difficult to formulate any policy. It is true to say that, whenever it released any policy and said anything significant about it, it was usually withdrawn the next day. When something is said it is usually a suggestion, for example, that there ought to be a pensioners tax introduced, that we ought to go to a social insurance principle, that people ought to pay for their pensions, or it is a suggestion that people who are on unemployment benefit ought to have their benefits terminated over time. If we are talking about great lies and liars it is quite clear that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown) made his position on the termination of benefits very clear. He said: But we equally believe that you will not get rid of poverty by the present hand-out mentality that encourages people to remain in poverty. You will only get rid of poverty by encouraging people to lift themselves out of it. You do no good, for instance, for the unemployed by allowing them to remain on the dole indefinitely. We would be doing far more to encourage the unemployed to lift themselves out of unemployment by making them work for the dole and terminating it after a specific period. It is very clear that that is what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has been about. In terms of anything more substantial by way of policy other than suggesting that supporting parent beneficiaries are paid too much, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was suggesting that the long-term unemployed should have their benefits terminated. It is a reflection on many of the older people in the Australian community. There are suggestions, which are withdrawn later, that perhaps people ought to be paying for their pensions and that there ought to be some levy scheme introduced in the work force now. We have heard absolutely nothing about policy from the Opposition. This Government has been systematically attacking a number of major policy issues through a very important review of social security. Already a number of papers have been published emanating from that review and there will be many more papers to come. In addition, there will be major issue papers released by the review which will allow the opportunity for public debate on some of the central questions of social security policy. The Government has sought to create through the social security review the opportunity of having very broad public participation in policy making. As I move around the welfare sector-where the honourable member for Richmond is unknown-I find that people welcome the fact that there is the opportunity for debate and discussion of some of the very important questions that we face. It ill-becomes the Liberal-National Party coalition to criticise the Government's record on social security policy when one thinks of the massive growth in poverty that occurred during its period in office. From 1972 to 1982 the number of people in poverty increased from 8 per cent to 13 per cent. The number of children living in poverty soared from 8 per cent to 19 per cent, so that one Australian child in five was poverty stricken. It is an appalling record for a developed country. Unemployment leaped from 311,000 to 561,000. Under the stewardship of the previous Treasurer, the now Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), family allowances fell by 30 per cent, while additional allowances and benefits for the poorest in the Australian community fell by 45.6 per cent. Such was the terrible poverty and chaos in the system perpetrated by the Howard-Fraser Government that social security expenditure blew out, as I suggested earlier, to 7.1 per cent of GDP while poverty deepened dramatically. As a percentage of gross domestic product, social security expenditure is now 6.6 per cent through administrative improvements and some success in the reduction in unemployment. If any example of administration was superficial, ineffectual, it was the Howard approach. The Opposition's big success story in cracking down on welfare fraud was the Greek social security conspiracy case. The taxpayer is still paying for that success, to the tune of $10m in compensation. In stark contrast, this Government has proved in its three years of government to be not only excellent in streamlining administration to make social security more effective and efficient, but it has also increased allowances and benefits to the poorest in the community through the better targeting of expenditure. There have been significant increases in rent allowances, fringe benefits, and a range of allowances such as pensions and benefits have continued to be indexed. The recently announced and much needed establishment of a child maintenance agency has been one of the major policy achievements of this Government. Very soon a paper will be put out on the way that agency will operate. I hope that the Opposition will support the approach we are taking on that matter. This is an area in which we ought to have a bipartisan approach because it is a problem that could have been tackled by the coalition when it was in government. It was not. We have tackled it. However, to bring the agency into effective administration, we will need to have the support of everyone in the Parliament who is concerned about the issue. We were spending more than $200m on new computers and technology and on improving general administrative ability as well as on detecting and investigating fraud. We have tightened up the administration of unemployment and supporting parent benefits through the introduction of selective reviews, tougher proof of identity procedures, constant computer cross-checks with other government data banks, and reviews at national, regional and State levels. Also, we have excluded short term visitors from New Zealand and Britain from receiving unemployment benefit. We are the only government to have renegotiated national treaties first signed in the 1940s. If the honourable member is honest, he will remember that I pointed out how we would handle the question of New Zealand fraud before he ever raised the issue publicly. No other government has tackled the question of the renegotiation of those agreements. No other government has tackled successfully the question of portability. This Government has resolved those issues, and that will have the effect of tightening social security payments internationally. We will make registration with the Commonwealth Employment Service mandatory by legislation. I say to honourable members that the weakening of procedures regarding the CES were a direct result of the Lynch razor gang's attacks on social security and a direct result of government policy at the time. When the great blow-out in unemployment occurred, effectively all selective reviews within the Department of Social Security were abandoned by the then coalition Government. It ill-becomes the honourable member to suggest that I have not been tackling problems which his Party failed to tackle when it was in government, for not three years but for seven years. There have been considerable achievements in the area of fraud control. There has been an increase of 50 per cent in 1985-86 in prosecutions involving serious fraud under the Crimes Act. The total amount of money involved in prosecutions under the Crimes and Social Security Acts has risen by $2.5m. Through the introduction of direct credit of pensions and benefits, cheque fraud and theft have fallen by 72 per cent. Broadly, the Government has, through improved administration and reductions in unemployment, saved about $1 billion in social security expenditure while ensuring increases and new allowances for those most in need. That is hardly a record of ineffectiveness in administration. The honourable member failed to address himself to the question of policy in social security, because the Opposition has no policy. The honourable member and the Opposition are ineffectual in terms of social security because they are not game to release a single policy document. The only way we will find out their policy is through the leaking of that policy, and many of their documents have been. I believe that the only reason it has not been leaked is that the policy simply does not exist. At a time of a major inquiry into social security in which the key areas of retirement income, the labour market and family allowances are being reviewed and many papers are being published, and when national consultations will be held before the end of this year around the question of the child support levy, the maintenance agency and family payments, one would think that at least we would hear at least some suggestion of the direction of Opposition policy. But we do not hear that. All we hear from the honourable member opposite and his colleagues are only half-baked announcements that usually have to be withdrawn the day after they have been made. While the Opposition talks about slashing social expenditure, it does not have the guts to come out with a single policy, even though this Government had made, and has been prepared to make, many tough decisions. The mentality of the Opposition is the mentality of John Valder, the President of the Liberal Party-that is, `We will leave it to the Government to make all the tough decisions; we will stand back and then try to pick up whatever political gain we can from the fact that many of those decisions will necessarily be unpopular'. That kind of political morality is a morality of the lowest order. It is a morality which does nothing for this Parliament. It does nothing for parliamentary democracy in this country. When I reflect in Question Time on the approach of the honourable member opposite it is because I believe that in the area of social security we need some sensitivity. In terms of the way field officers may or may not operate, the Government has made commitments, which we have kept, to be non-intrusive; for example, in relation to the assets test and the way in which we go about our business. Is the honourable member opposite seriously suggesting that he wants field officers to be under people's beds all over the country, acting in a way that reflects the authoritarianism which I believe is a considerable danger in a society represented very much by the New Right? Of course, it is important that we have a social security system with integrity. However, it is also important that people have rights and that their entitlements are guaranteed under the law. The way in which we administer the system is designed to protect those rights. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Mr HUNT(Gwydir) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented in Question Time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member wish to make a personal explanation? Mr HUNT-Yes, indeed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr HUNT —In Question Time the Treasurer (Mr Keating) misrepresented me by selectively quoting from a circulated address to a forum in Narrabri. The Treasurer has attempted to claim that I was advocating a single income tax rate and exposing lower income earners, including farmers, to higher tax by abolishing the threshold. I quote from what I did say: A flatter tax rate is our immediate goal. . . . This would have to be accompanied by taxation below the present threshold, but with a rebate system for those in the low income range . . . models are presently being examined to achieve an equitable flatter tax rate system designed to restore personal incentive. (Budget Debate) Debate resumed. Mr KENT(Hotham)(3.27) —As said before the suspension of the sitting for lunch, the corporate sector is doing very well under the Hawke Labor Government. I shall read a few more headlines and reports from newspapers to illustrate that point: Big sales push lifts Ford profit: $103m Ford Australia has continued its spectacular profit climb of recent years, boosting earnings 6.7 per cent in 1985 to a record $103.5 million. That is a $97m dividend pay-out to Ford's United States parent company. There is certainly no tightening of belts there. I continue: Tooth sheds $260 million in perks, lifts profit 57 per cent Tooth (and Co. Limited) reported yesterday a 57 per cent growth in pre-tax earnings to $65.9 million, as a result of strong growth in investment income. Coles Myer nets $179 million, despite tough shakeout Coles Myer has recorded a 43.2 per cent increase in profit to the year to July 27 . . . There is certainly no 2 per cent discounting here, as on workers' wages. I continue: Kidston exceeds output target, posts $19 million profit Kidston Gold Mines Ltd beat production targets by 15,000 ounces . . . and has posted a profit of $19.4 million. AWA 76% increase in profit Arnotts an increase of 22% Boral Building Products increased profit by 20% Sunshine's earnings rise 350% I could go on and on to show that the corporate sector is doing very well indeed under the Labor Government. Let me add that the profit boom is not confined to the corporate sector. A recently published survey by Business Review Weekly noted: The total wealth of the 200 individuals and 57 families on this year's list is $14.8 billion, compared with $10.5 billion last year. That is nearly a 50 per cent increase of wealth. The survey also found that there is some nudging between the `new' and the `old' rich. There are apparently no losers in this game. I quote again: Both the new and the old are getting richer . . . They are adding to their assets with phenomenal speed, so much so that Business Review Weekly concluded: It is well within the realm of possibility . . . that the first Australian billionaires will emerge next year. Quite clearly, according to impeccable sources such as the Business Review Weekly, the rich have never had it so good. Let me add that I can only imagine that this is very good news for every one of the 25,000 millionaires in this country; however, the news is not so good for the vast majority of Australians who do not belong or benefit from the rising wealth of the few. It is a fact that the poorest 2.5 million people in Australia have as much wealth as the richest 200,000. The bottom 50 per cent of our population holds only 8 per cent of the wealth of this country. The 25,000 or so millionaires co-exist with another two million Australians who live below the poverty line. So much for equity. While we are asking the workers to accept a further reduction in their living standards, thousands of millions of dollars in profits are being repatriated to parent companies overseas. Although we can blame the drop in commodity prices for some of our current ills, we cannot blame anybody but ourselves for deregulating our currency and the financial markets and making it easy for the corporate sector to take the profits earned on our labour and our Australian resources and to invest those profits overseas. However, the more we free up our markets for exploitation, the more the speculators want. They are never satisfied. They want to deregulate everything, including the labour market, so that they can have a free go at plundering our economy. They have even created the so-called New Right. Let me say that there is nothing new about the New Right-it is as old as human greed. The only difference between the New Right and the diprotodont is that the latter became extinct 60,000 years ago while the New Right regroups itself every 20 to 30 years and reappears under a different name to attack the living standards of the Australian people. For example, let us examine the following statement: We are facing more economic troubles now than ever before in Australia's history; tens of thousands of men and women are suffering through unemployment . . . Surely, then, it is rather dreadful to see great queues of people waiting outside cinema palaces . . . in the big cities you see them lined up even in the early morning . . . and thousands of people spend much time and money at the race meetings, week after week . . . it is a thing that should be stirring the consciences of people in this country. If we could get more people thinking more seriously, things would not be nearly so bad as they are. That quote is not from a statement by the Leader of the Opposition, or from Mr Copeman or someone from the New Right, it is an excerpt from a statement by Mr S. M. Bruce, Prime Minister of Australia, dated 3 July 1929. The puerile prescription that we have to work harder and be paid less has been repeated before by every reactionary nut, especially during the Great Depression, including the then Archbishop of Melbourne, Dr Mannix. `If only we could work more, work our way out and accept less'-that is the only prescription that the New Right, or the old right for that matter, ever had to give. One should recall the visit of the British banker, Sir Otto Niemeyer. He had the same message as the Hugh Morgans and John Stones of the New Right. He lectured our Government about the new economics, based on the so-called new tenet, which was, in his words: Reduce the standard of the people's living. That was the message from Niemeyer, who was sent here by English bankers in the 1930s. Similarly, if one recalls the Premier's plan-the 10 per cent reduction of wages in the 1930s-one can see that there is nothing new about the New Right. It has learnt nothing and it has forgotten nothing. While I support this Budget, I am not as confident as our Treasurer that we are heading in the right direction as far as our economic policy is concerned. I am particularly concerned, not for those whom I mentioned earlier in the 200-richest club-they are doing very well-or the 25,000 millionaires, but for all those millions of ordinary and hard-working Australians who have not benefited from the profit boom. If our balance of payments does not improve drastically in a relatively short period, we must examine other options, such as fixing the currency at a reasonable level, the introduction of import control and providing selective low interest loans to our export industry and import replacement industry, as well as controls for the excessive outflow of capital to overseas countries. While all of these measures are important, it seems quite evident that the most urgent task ahead of us is to provide assistance to our manufacturing industry. Of course, there are certain things which we cannot do very much about. The price of our commodities on the world market has dropped and we have lost thousands of millions of dollars of income. Thanks to our very good allies, we cannot sell our wheat for the prices that we should get! We are now selling our wheat at less than it costs us to produce it. The same goes for sugar and other commodities. It is not a coincidence that the prices of commodities that are produced mainly by Third World countries as well as by First World countries are low. The products of First World countries-the sophisticated engineering products and electronics-are very highly priced, but when the club includes producers from Third World countries, those prices are depressed by the intention of the First World to exploit the Third World and to insulate their own farmers and their own pockets against losses. The United States, as well as the OECD countries, have introduced subsidies. If they continue to do that, we will have no choice but to do the same thing ourselves to protect our primary industry. Otherwise, we should give notice now that we will take measures and actions to protect ourselves as much and as well as any other Western country does. To do that, we should take measures to protect our manufacturing industry. According to the latest report in the Australian Financial Review of 17 September, manufacturing output has declined to a level not seen since 1985. In stark contrast to reports such as this one, the Business Review Weekly and other similar journals advise: Entrepreneurs are spearheading the accumulation of wealth in Australia . . . the speed with which they are adding to their assets is phenomenal. The report goes on to cite some examples which are worth repeating here: In 1983 Business Review Weekly estimated Alan Bond's wealth at $25m. Today's conservative estimate, even making a heavy discount for his borrowings, is $200m. In the same time, Larry Adler has built a $25m fortune into a $280m fortune. Holmes a Court has added $500m to his net worth in the space of three years. Bear in mind that this is not productive capital. These gentlemen did not build anything, they just took over. They are buying shares and speculating on share markets. (Quorum formed) Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! It being approximately 3.45 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr BURR(Lyons)(3.44) —I wish to bring to the notice of the House this afternoon the very difficult case of a constituent of mine, Mr C. G. Blair, and the dispute he has been having for some time with the Australian Customs Service. Mr Blair is an operator of bulldozers and other log moving equipment at the Triabunna woodchip mill. In the course of using that equipment he had been claiming a diesel fuel levy rebate since 8 August 1983. Mr Blair, in the course of claiming that rebate, had disclosed all relevant information to the Customs Service and rebates had been paid to him by Customs. However, on 3 June 1985 he was visited by Mr Laurie Chivers from the Hobart office of the Customs Service, who advised him that the office was paying him incorrectly and that he had been overpaid by an amount of $10,795.46. The Customs Service demanded repayment of that amount, and in due course Mr Blair repaid the money, but under very strong protest. However, he was not prepared to allow the matter to rest there because he believed he had made claims quite legitimately and had received rebates of the diesel allowance quite legitimately under the relevant Act. Mr Blair took the matter to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The hearing was held in Hobart on 21 April 1986 before Deputy President R. C. Jennings. At that hearing Mr Blair pointed out that he had been claiming the rebate under section 164 of the Customs Act. While the Customs Service argued that, because of Mr Blair's business there may be a dispute as to the type of refund he was entitled to, he pointed out that under section 165 of the same Act back claims for incorrect payments were restricted to a period of 12 months. It was that argument that was finally accepted by Mr Jennings. The result of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal hearing was that Mr Blair's case, to all intents and purposes, was upheld and the Customs Service was ordered to refund the amount of $10,000-odd to him. Despite the fact that Mr Blair won his appeal, at this stage he has still not received any money. Mr Cadman —That's typical. Mr BURR —I agree with my colleague; that is typical. I took up this matter on his behalf with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and it disclaimed that it was responsible for the refunding of the money to Mr Blair. In fact it claimed, quite contrary to the evidence given to the hearing, that it had charged the refund for Mr Blair under section 78 of the Customs Act, which was not mentioned at the hearing. Mr Blair has still not received any money despite the fact that I have repeatedly taken up this matter with the Department of Industry, Tehnology and Commerce. On three occasions I have taken it up with the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button). I have not had any substantive reply from either the Customs Service or the Minister. Mr Blair still has not had his money refunded to him. I believe this is evidence of gross mismanagement by this Government. I ask the Minister to look at this matter most urgently because Mr Blair is legally entitled to the money he has been granted by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I believe he has a good case for claiming interest on the money that at this stage has not been refunded to him. Mr LEE(Dobell)(3.48) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to bring to the attention of the House a matter of great concern to the residents of Summerland Point. Two weeks ago today the Australia Post agency at Summerland Point was closed temporarily while an audit investigation was carried out. I do not question Australia Post's decision to audit any post office agency. If serious questions about the administration of an agency arise and the performance of an agent has been unsatisfactory, I do not question Australia Post's decision to close temporarily any agency while a new agent is sought. When I was advised by telephone of Australia Post's intention to close the Summerland Point post office agency I was assured that the closure was only temporary and that new and improved accommodation for the agency was being examined. When residents of Summerland Point contracted my office following the closure of the existing agency on 5 September I advised them of Australia Post's assurance that the closure was only temporary. I understand that the Summerland Point residents who contacted Australia Post's staff at Gosford were also advised that the closure was only temporary. Australia Post has since determined that the Summerland Point agency will not reopen. Its decision is based on two grounds. Firstly, it claims that the agency lost more than $16,000 last financial year; and, secondly, it claims that no suitable alternative accommodation is available. Leaving aside for the moment the fact that Australia Post's decision broke assurances given to local residents and me that the closure was only temporary, I remain totally unconvinced that Summerland Point should lose its post office agency. I believe that suitable alternative accommodation is available, and this was confirmed to my satisfaction in a telephone conversation earlier today. As for the $16,000 loss allegedly justifying the closure, I am told that this was due largely to a downturn in Commonwealth Savings Bank transactions. The post office agency provides an essential service for Summerland Point residents and, as the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Price) has suggested, it has a great effect on local pensioners. Postal and Commonwealth Savings Bank services are available through the agency and council rates, telephone accounts and electricity accounts can be paid there. It is unreasonable to expect residents, especially the many elderly citizens and school children, to walk a considerable distance to Gwandalan if they wish to pay an account or collect a parcel. The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) advised the House yesterday that in the electorate of Maranoa in south-west Queensland an average subsidy of $1,083 per year is given to each telephone subscriber by Telecom. The cross-subsidy on only 16 telephones in Maranoa would fund a full post office agency service at Summerland Point. Australia Post has been unable to advise me how many other post office agencies cost more to run than the Summerland Point agency, but I am confident that there are many agencies which should be closed on economic grounds long before Summerland Point should even be considered for closure. During a telephone conversation with a representative of Australia Post today, I remarked that I had been sold the dump by Australia Post. This was due to Australia Post's initial telephone advice to me that the closure was only temporary, bearing in mind that I received a letter from the Acting District Manager of the Gosford District, Sydney North Division of Australia Post, of 26 August, which I shall table at the end of my speech. This letter was in reply to some petitions which I had received from several post office agencies in my electorate expressing concern over rumoured closures. After advising me of the background to the petitions being circulated, the letter reads: However, you have my assurance that when closures are considered you will be fully informed prior to the event. For your information, none of the proposed agencies within your electorate in this division on the attached list are planned for closure in the 1986-87 financial year. Sure enough, on the attached list is Summerland Point, postcode 2259. It appears on the list of agencies which I was assured were not planned for closure in the 1986-87 financial year. I have taken up this matter with the Minister for Communications and the State Manager of Australia Post in the hope that the decision permanently to close the Summerfield Point post office agency will be urgently reconsidered, especially because of the severe impact on the local residents of Summerfield Point. It is important to remember also that Australia Post has some obligation to me and to the local residents because of the assurances which it gave to us previously. I am sure that I speak for the vast majority of Summerland Point residents when I assure the House that every effort will be made to convince Australia Post and the Minister for Communications of the need for a post office agency at Summerland Point. I seek leave, Mr Deputy Speaker, to table the letter to which I referred. Leave granted. Mr HICKS(Riverina-Darling)(3.55) —Recently I attended a graduation ceremony for nurses at the Broken Hill Base Hospital. A number of nurses graduated and it was a beautiful ceremony, as it always is. The nurses took the oath and it was a great ceremony. In one sense, however, it was a sad one because it is the second to last time that nurses will be graduating from the hospital after having been trained there. The hospital has been the place where many famous people have graduated as nurses. Two who spring to mind in particular are Vivian Bullwinkel and Irene Drummond, who, honourable members will remember, were involved in the Banka Strait massacre by the Japanese. One of the sisters survived and the other, unfortunately, did not. Many of those who graduated at the Broken Hill Hospital have gone on to attain positions of importance in Australia and throughout the world in the nursing profession and in hospital administration. I am disappointed by the trend that has developed or the new way of training nurses. There is a trend now for nurses to go to colleges of advanced education and not to train in hospitals. I know all the arguments that are advanced for taking that course. I know that nurses and others in the community believe that because of modern advanced technology and the desire of the nursing fraternity to have better qualifications that will lead to the advancement of nursing and its status, which may bring with it the possibility of nurses receiving higher rates of pay, it is desirable to adopt this approach. I believe, however, that there is nothing better than hands-on training. Let us consider the arguments against nurses going to colleges of advanced education. This will be of interest to the boys and girls from the Chatham High School at Taree. I know that the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) is proud of the school and it is good to see the boys and girls here today. Some of these young men and women may be interested in what I am about to say because it affects them and their parents. If young people are living in the bush and they want to train to become nurses-I have in mind places such as Broken Hill and perhaps Taree-they have to leave their homes to go to other centres where there are colleges of advanced education, and not all such colleges have the facilities to train nurses. This means that young people have to pay to attend a college instead of obtaining a wage as a trainee nurse. I have had an estimate made recently of how much it costs to send a youngster to a college to train as a nurse and the cost is about $160 per week for the time that he or she is at the college. Mr Cobb —How can young people afford that? Mr HICKS —They cannot afford it. This means that at Broken Hill, for example, 50 young people cannot obtain employment who would have been able to do so when the training scheme was in operation. Rather than earning money, the training at a college of advanced education is costing them money. They have to leave their homes and, if they go to a major centre from a place such as Broken Hill, the chance of their returning is extremely slight. We cannot afford to lose young men and women from bush towns, if I may be excused for describing them as such. These people are precious to us and once they go it is difficult to get them back. There is no doubt that we have a nursing and hospital crisis, and I am sure in my heart that the new training scheme is not in the best interests of the people, especially the rural dwellers of Australia. I am saying to the Government and to the nursing profession, as well as to those in the hospital system, that they should think again. I know that at Broken Hill and other centres in my electorate there is great concern, first, that young people are leaving the area; secondly, that jobs are not available in smaller towns. There is a belief that the best place for nurses to train is a hospital. If those who have been trained at a hospital want them to move on elsewhere, perhaps a scheme could be devised that would enable them to receive advanced training at a college or university. For basic training, however, let us leave nurses in hospitals, where they feel comfortable and can earn something. They will receive hands-on training and will be trained to be competent nurses. The college system may work, and I am certainly not arguing that it does not produce competent nurses, but I reiterate my belief that nurses should train in our hospitals. Mr BEDDALL(Rankin)(3.58) —I want to bring to the attention of the House a situation that has arisen at the Kingston High School, which is within my Federal division. The suburb of Kingston is south of Brisbane in Logan City. Several years ago, a number of parents involved in the high school at Kingston formed a breakfast club to bring nutrition to the young people of Kingston. There are some young families in Kingston that are without resources and this came to the attention of the parents and the principal of the school. They came to realise that a number of young people who were attending school had not received sufficient nutrition in the morning. The action that they took was supported by many within the community, with the exception of former State high school principal Mr Lingard, who now happens to be a National Party member of the State Parliament. Last Monday week a quite disturbing event took place at Kingston High School. The State Special Branch intervened, ostensibly to interview people involved in the breakfast club program. I find it to be an atrocious act that the State's political police should be brought to bear on the parents and citizens association of a school that is trying to provide a necessary service for the students. Over many years this program was supported by members of the community who have a very deep concern for the young people and their academic achievements. Many students were finding it difficult to concentrate because-and this is unfortunate in our society-they were going to school hungry in the mornings. The program has been enormously successful. It is a program that people have come to respect. Unfortunately, a very narrow minded group in the community were offended by this program, saying that it brought disrepute to the students and the school. I totally reject this proposition, because the breakfast club program was of immense benefit. What I find offensive, as I have already said, is that the State Special Branch was used to investigate a school parents and citizens association. This could happen only in Queensland, not in any other State, because of the political implementation of policies by the Queensland National Party. It is an extraordinary decision by a State police force to have a Special Branch unit investigate a high school breakfast club. At a time when the Bjelke-Petersen Government is talking about terrorists under the bed, perhaps it should address issues that relate to its own political activities. The parents who complained to the police force about this group did not have the interests of the students at heart. Their only interest was to protect National Party operatives in the area. I wish formally to object to this treatment of students in the Kingston High School. Mr MILES(Braddon)(4.02) —One of the things of great concern to people in Australia is the way in which families are being treated by this Government. This has been brought home to me particularly by a letter from a principal of one of the high schools in my area illustrating some of the things which he is concerned about in regard to families. He states: Since May 1983 families have- 1. lost rebates on medical insurance; 2. lost rebates on housing interest; 3. had cuts imposed on children's tax threshold; 4. seen reductions in, and now the abolition of the general rebate; 5. lost family benefits for 18 year old students; 6. had family benefits for 16 year olds means tested with no account taken of the number of other children in the family or the tax already paid. That is just a small list of the things which this Government is doing to the detriment of the core families of this nation. Mr Hollis —I bet that guy voted Liberal. Mr MILES —It is interesting to note that interjection by the honourable member: `I bet this bloke votes Liberal'. I cannot be certain of that. He states that, despite earning an income of almost $42,000 a year, he will be bankrupt this financial year under the present tax conditions if he tries to give his first child a university education. The situation is that this family will have to leave the region in which they live. It will cost approximately $5,000 for each child to attend a tertiary institution. The children would receive no tertiary assistance scheme allowance. They would receive no benefits whatsoever in that regard. The man outlines in his letter the horror with which he contemplates the time when he will have two children attending university, because that will cost that family $10,000. His net disposable income is about $25,000-in fact, he says it is $25,732.96. It will cost $10,000 to maintain the two girls at university. They are actually very able students. One was the Rotary speaker for Tasmania last year. She is a very competent student and should have the opportunity of attending a tertiary institution. What this family is really grappling with is the way in which this Government is treating families who have more than two children, or who have any children. The way in which the family will get around this, of course, is that the two girls, who will want to attend university within a year or two-one next year and one the year after-will go out to work, or they will stay at home and receive the dole for two years, after which time they can apply for the TEAS benefit. Such families have a genuine problem, and we are forcing them into these situations. The Budget which was recently been brought down illustrates the point even further. Because of measures contained in the Budget, this man loses a net figure of $1,514 in taxation, besides the extra taxes which will be imposed on milk, fruit juices and other items. I illustrate. The loss of the family allowance for 16- and 17-year-olds means that the family will lose $1,014. The petrol tax increase of 3c a litre means a loss of more than $3 a week. Prescription charges have been increased from $5 to $10. The letter continues: We will be lucky to keep to 20 prescriptions with my blood pressure and Melissa's asthma, let alone what can happen to any of the other 5 household members. Tertiary fees will cost $250. The letter states: If by the grace of God we can scrape enough to send Angela to university. I make a plea to the Government to think more carefully about spending money on those families who train their children, who stick together as families, who contribute to the community, rather than spending money on other sectors and peripheral groups in our community. It has got to a point where it is impossible for these families to meet their responsibilities. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(4.07) —The day before yesterday I was speaking about the problem of radioactive wastes. I am glad to have the opportunity to continue my remarks today. In accordance with the London Dumping Convention, existing law prohibits the dumping of high level wastes. But of course there are scientific experts who have been willing to state that the seas have the capacity to absorb low level wastes, provided their disposal is in accordance with internationally accepted guidelines. The problem with these expert assessments is that they argue that they are dealing with the most conservative estimates of nuclear radiation waste accumulation and that therefore the accumulated effects are negligible, even though they also agree that there is uncertainty about the effects of low level nuclear radiation in our ocean depths because of a lack of research on such matters. Scientists have been wrong on a number of occasions in the past in the assessment of the effects of nuclear radiation on human beings. Why should we believe them now? Why must we continue to put up with the promises and protestations of the nuclear industry, whose apologists and supporters have been proved wrong on so many occasions? Despite the Chernobyl disaster in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics only a few enlightened countries, such as Sweden, are scaling down their developments of nuclear energy. There is a need for an examination of means of reducing the world-wide rate of increase in the usage of nuclear power. The aim must be a marked reduction in the manufacturing of nuclear weapons by the super-powers and more energy conservation in the industrialised world, not only in the direct use of energy, but also in the unnecessary economic activity resulting from the artificial stimulation of demands by the advertising industry. We should be undertaking research into renewable sources of energy, such as solar power, wind power and the tides. For example, engineers at Stanford University in California have developed a new type of silicon cell which promises to make solar energy as competitive as conventional types of fuel such as coal, oil and natural gas. Electricity derived from nuclear fuel is far more costly than the conventional types of fuel. So why do we give such priority to the nuclear fuel industry? The low level wastes which the amending legislation which was proposed in this Parliament will prohibit comprise liquid radioactive waste and combustible solid radioactive wastes generated from nuclear power plants and other nuclear facilities. These wastes are solidified with cement into metal containers. For the Japanese, sea dumping is considered the safest way of disposing of its low level nuclear waste, although they have been co-operating with the London Dumping Convention nations. In this respect, an Australian parliamentary delegation to Japan in October 1983, led by the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott), was able to convey to the Japanese officials of the Atomic Energy Bureau and the Nuclear Safety Bureau the concern of many Australians about the dangers of dumping radioactive wastes in the oceans, particularly the Pacific Ocean. The most dangerous and highly irresponsible release of radioactive material is through the medium of nuclear weapons tests presently being carried out by the French Government at Mururoa Lagoon in the Pacific Ocean. So far the French have conducted 41 atmospheric tests in the Pacific, although these have now finished, and 68 underground tests, which are still continuing. In November 1981, following two severe storms, three French engineers working on the atoll breached the Defence Secrets Act and informed a French newspaper that radioactive levels had doubled in the previous four months, that the north beach was a vast radioactive rubbish heap measuring 30,000 square metres, that the two storms in March and August had exposed irradiated waste and, finally, that the blasts from the tests sent shock waves through the atoll's core, sinking it about two centimetres after every detonation. In late 1983 a team of scientists from Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea were allowed to inspect Mururoa Atoll. Their report indicated an overall whitewash for the French Government because it stated that in the test case a radioactive leakage would not occur for 500 to 1,000 years. However, one section of the report stated that if fracturing of the volcanics accompanied a test and allowed a vertical release of radioactivity to the limestone, specific contaminants would, in this worst case, enter the biosphere within five years. It was interesting to note that much of the data on the tests was provided by the French. The team was also not allowed to test samples from the western and northern areas of the atoll and the lagoon where the two severe storms of 1981 had washed radioactive wastes into the sea and lagoon. The people of the Pacific, many Australians and particularly the Tahitians are well justified in saying to the French Government: `If the nuclear tests are as safe as you say they are, stop testing them in our ocean and undertake your nuclear tests in metropolitan France'. Mr HICKS(Riverina-Darling)(4.12) —Earlier today I spoke about the Broken Hill Base Hospital and the nurses at that hospital. I remind the House that this weekend the nurses at that hospital are having a reunion and a 92-year-old lady-Kath Bryant-is attending that reunion. I, and I know all honourable members, would like to congratulate this grand lady. Earlier we heard from the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles), who is quite an expert on tertiary and other education in Australia. What he says in the House on education always has a great impact. Today I am here to support him. I have a letter-I know the honourable member for Braddon also received a letter and no doubt other members on both sides of the House have had such letters-about the recent increase in tertiary fees for some students of $250 per student. I do not think it is the $250 that really worries tertiary students; there are other things. I would like to read a letter which I think is indicative of the problem. I know that many other members have received similar letters. The letter states: Dear Noel The recent decision to re-introduce tertiary fees shows in my opinion, a complete ignorance of the financial problems placed on people, and particularly country families, distant from tertiary institutions who are ambitious to advance their children's education. Of all the recent debates through the media, not once have I heard or read of the additional family expense and might I add an extraordinary additional family hardship, required to accommodate, clothe, feed, transport etc., one's child at University some 600 km from home particularly when one's wage denies any form of TEAS subsidy. In 1987 I will have two children attending-- I will not name the university- Including this onerous tertiary fee, the following costs will be incurred in 1987: Accommodation ... $5,800 They will be lucky to get accommodation for that amount. The letter continues: Clothing... 1,000 Text Books... 800 Union Fees... 400 Transport... 400 Sundries... 1,800 Tertiary Fees ... 500 Total... $11,700 This represents $162 per child per University Week attended. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure you would agree that that is a fair imposition on any family. The letter continues: Hardly a modest amount and an amount which causes extreme sacrifice on the parents. Our City counterparts who are able to accommodate their children at home whilst attending tertiary institutions are therefore indeed fortunate. Why cannot financial assistance be given to the student on an away-from-home basis, rather than means tested on the father's wage. I can assure you that the only gain or advantage to myself and my wife over the next four years will be to see our children receive their Degrees. I simply cannot understand why no recognition has been given to all those other country families in my position. I can only assume that either the political parties are indeed ignorant of this country/city financial differential or elect politically, to ignore the problem in the hope that it is not raised or if raised, quickly disappears. I write to you Noel as my Federal Member in the hope that the situation can be rectified. I think that is the situation of most county people who send their children to centres of higher education for their advancement. I ask the Government and the Opposition parties to look at this matter when they are preparing their policies for the next election and to ensure that all Australian youngsters have the same treatment and the same advantages whether they are attending tertiary education institutions, technical and further education colleges or any other form of educational institution. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(4.16) —I rise to speak about the uranium industry and, in particular, the storage of high level nuclear waste. I have said in this place many times that Australia must develop industries in which we have an expertise and natural advantage. In the storage of high level nuclear waste, with the Synroc system developed by Professor Ringwood of the Australian National University we have a tremendous advantage, because without a doubt this is the safest method of storage in the world. That is not to say that borosilicate glass is not entirely safe. I think it is, but there is no doubt that Synroc, which is basically the storing and locking up of the wastes in a synthetic titanium rock, is at least 10 times safer. It is enormously safe. Professor Ringwood proposes that we drill a hole into the earth about four kilometres deep-4,000 metres deep-into which he would lower canisters of his Synroc encased in stainless steel. Every 100 metres he would pack bentonite clay, a high yielding clay, which will expand to twice its size if it gets wet. This would preclude the entry of water. He would then put in another canister and so on until he got to within 1,000 metres of the top, when the whole hole would be filled with crushed sedimentary rock, making it completely impervious. The closest anyone could get to that radioactive material would, of course, be one kilometre. I am sure that every honourable member can see that that is extraordinarily safe. I am very mindful of alternative sources of power. I currently hold two solar energy patents, one of which I have high hopes for, and I hope to make some money in due course. I have also been involved in trying to get into Australia the very latest on amorphous silicon technology. Australian industry seems very reluctant to grasp this enormously exciting technology. However, because I know that technology and how efficient it is, I can say that it simply is not designed to produce the brute power that is needed for industry, and it is not claimed by the designers that it could. It is not a replacement for industry; industry will always need large amounts of power and that is not the solar option. I am very conscious of the need to develop solar energy and I am very critical of Australian industry's lack of interest. When I was trying to get finance for one of my patents I hawked it around the country and it was eventually taken up by the French company Total which, despite the fact that it is exploring for uranium in Australia, is very conscious of solar technology and was very willing to fund that development. That development will have enormous ramifications for Australia. It has the capacity to employ probably 20,000 people and provide a lot of administrative positions. It even has the possibility of giving women equal status in jobs. I ask honourable members to cast their minds forward 20 years. In 20 years time Broken Hill will be the biggest ghost town in the world. The ore will be gone or it will be unobtainable, due to 70 years of bad mining practice brought about by a greedy, avaricious State royalty system. The ore will be there but we simply will not get at it. In 20 years time we will be able to say: `Broken Hill is a ghost town'. I do not believe that people of Broken Hill or the Barrier Council will walk away from industry. If one goes 20 miles west of Broken Hill one gets into the gabbro belt where there is some of the most stable rock material in Australia. When Broken Hill goes down the chute, Port Pirie will go down the chute too and that has to be remembered. It has a very good infrastructure and a very good railway. It is a lovely town. I believe that we would be doing a national service to Port Pirie if we could say to it: `You no longer need this dangerous, dirty lead industry which has poisoned the brains of your kids. We can give you the relatively clean nuclear waste industry. You can bring nuclear waste ships into Port Pirie. The waste can be transported up a very modern railway to Broken Hill and incarcerated forever in this Synroc encased environment where it can do absolutely no harm'. The people who say that it is all right for Australia to sell uranium-to Japan, for instance-but that we will have nothing to do with the resultant waste are totally immoral. Australia must wake up to its moral responsibility. We have an obligation to store waste for those people to whom we sell uranium. If we sell uranium to Japan the waste will eventually find itself in the ocean. We should make sure that that does not happen. We have a responsibility to the world. We have the ability to develop a unique Australian industry, one in which we have a natural advantage. We should have a nuclear waste industry here so that we can protect the world and its environment from the dangers of radiation. At a future date I will continue my speech and explain why it is essential that we have nuclear submarines and base the industry at Whyalla. Mr BURR(Lyons)(4.21) —I congratulate the Gray Government in Tasmania on the very excellent Budget that it brought down this week. I am sure that, in doing so, I am supported by my colleagues from Tasmania, the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles), the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) and the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck). I point out to the House that in this year's Budget the Tasmanian Government was able to achieve a deficit of only half a million dollars. All of us would have to agree that that would have to be the best public bookkeeping of any government in Australia. Unfortunately, that compares with the result of last year's Tasmanian Budget, which was a surplus of $34m-the only Government in Australia to have a Budget surplus. That result has been achieved by the Gray Government in light of the fact that, over the last two years, this Hawke-Keating socialist Government in Canberra has robbed the Tasmanian people and the Tasmanian Government of $160m. Despite the fact that that money has been taken away from Tasmania, Mr Gray and his Government were still able to achieve a deficit of only a half a million dollars this year in their Budget. The loss from the Commonwealth Government represents a loss of $350 for every man, woman and child in Tasmania, or $1,500 for every family in Tasmania. That is how mingy and stingy this Commonwealth Government has been to my State. I point out that, in the course of preparing that Budget, not only did Mr Gray and his Government achieve a deficit as low as half a million dollars but also, in its negotiations with the unions and the Public Service in the State, the Government was able to have the unions, by overwhelming agreement, drop the 17 1/2 per cent leave loading from their awards. That is a meritorious achievement for Tasmania, but it also sets a precedent for the rest of Australia. I congratulate the Gray Government on being able to achieve that objective with the unanimous support of the Tasmanian public servants. One of the unfortunate features of the Tasmanian Budget was a new petrol tax which Mr Gray was forced to impose on the Tasmanian motorists, not because he wanted to or because the Tasmanian Government wanted to but because he was forced to do so because of the tight-fisted responses he was receiving from the Federal Government. I hope that, when we have a new Liberal-National Party government in Canberra which will look after the State governments, Mr Gray will be able to rescind that tax imposed on the Tasmanian motorist. Not only have Mr Gray and his Government been able to achieve the marvellous result of a deficit of only half a million dollars but also, since that Government has been in power, employment in Tasmania has grown by 10 per cent, compared with a growth of only 8 per cent nationally. So not only is Tasmania getting its Budget deficit down but also employment is growing faster there than it is in any other State. The number of unemployed in Tasmania has fallen, compared with an increase of nearly 30 per cent nationally. While the unemployment level is increasing nationally, in Tasmania it is actually falling. Retail sales have grown by 45 per cent compared with 41 per cent nationally. I mention the number of new dwellings in the housing industry. We hear the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) pleading here day after day-although I think most people go to sleep when he gets to his feet, unfortunately-but in Tasmania the number of new dwellings has increased by more than 50 per cent. There has been a 50 per cent increase, compared with an increase of only 1.5 per cent nationally. This is the result of having a very astute and competent Liberal Government. New private capital expenditure has grown by nearly 20 per cent-more than three times the national average. We hear the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) talking about the problems of capital investment. Capital investment is going to Tasmania because investors know that in that State they have a very efficient, competent Liberal State Government led by Premier Gray. They know that in that State their investment will be in sound and secure hands. My colleagues and I on this side of the House congratulate the Gray Government on the results it has been able to achieve in Tasmania. We look forward to its continued government in that State. We also look forward to the day when we have a Liberal-National Party government at the Federal level so it can work closely with the Gray Government and with other Liberal State governments. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(4.26) —It is hypocrisy for Opposition members to criticise in this chamber, as they have this afternoon, this Government about its introduction of a $250 tertiary administration fee, because they know that, in the unlikely event of their ever getting back on the treasury benches, they would introduce full tertiary fees. Believe me, we would not be talking about $250 then; we would be talking about thousands and thousands of dollars. So honourable members opposite should stop their hypocrisy. I did not intend to speak on that subject this afternoon; however, I could not let their statements go without comment. I am going to speak about a topic I have raised in this chamber previously. My friends from the Queensland Association for Sri Lankan Unity have once more been analysing my speeches. I thank this group very much because not only does it analyse my speeches but it also publicises them in a little booklet. The one I have with me now is called: `Fact Sheet on Sri Lanka No. 24-Sri Lanka in the Australian Parliament in the First Half of 1986'. In this booklet the Association has reprinted and analysed some of my speeches. Mr John Brown —Can I have a copy? Mr HOLLIS —I believe that the Association sends it to most members of parliament, but I will give an autographed copy to anyone who wants one. The only thing I request of this group is that, if it is going to reproduce my speeches, it reproduce them in full, because it very selectively quotes from them. I believe that the analyst of my speeches lectures at Griffith University in Queensland. I trust he does his extramural work, including analysing my speeches, in his own time and not in the university's time. I also urge him to use his own postage for this purpose, and not that of the university. I am sure that Griffith University would not be very pleased to know that it was paying the postage on this propaganda. The envelope in which this booklet arrived in my office bore the postmark of Griffith University. The document starts with a preface arguing that the so-called study gives some precision to the discussion on Sri Lanka. What it means, I take it, by `precision' is language favourable to the cause which the Association espouses. It criticises me for accusing the Sri Lankan Government of trying to impose a `military solution' on the problems in Sri Lanka. It wonders what I mean by `military solution'. What I mean by `military solution', and what I guess most people would mean, is when the Sri Lankan Government unleashes its undisciplined thugs on innocent, unarmed people. The Sri Lankan Government argues every so often that those opposed to it also use arms. If those opposed to the Government use arms, the Government has the court of the land before which it can bring them. Surely, in this age, a test of any civilised nation is how it treats its minority. I put that to the Sri Lankan Government. I also put to the Sri Lankan Government and this group from Queensland that, if things are as good as they say in Sri Lanka and if what I say about what is happening in Sri Lanka is not true, why does the Government there not allow the International Red Cross into that country? Surely this is one way to verify what is happening there. Sri Lanka is one of the few countries in the world which will not permit the International Red Cross to come in and operate. As I say, if it permitted the Red Cross into the country it would either refute or verify what I am saying. There is quite a lot of criticism in this booklet, but what is most offensive is the criticism of Amnesty International. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! It being 4.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday next. House adjourned at 4.30 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr West to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of a New Wharf and Seamanship School at HMAS Cerberus, Crib Point. Mr West to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Develop of HMAS Albatross, Nowra, Stage 1. Mr Mildren to move- That this House- (1) congratulates the Ballarat College of Advanced Education on the tenth anniversary of its establishment; (2) acknowledges the significant contribution the BCAE has made to the education of students from Ballarat and other country areas; (3) supports its continuing commitment to high standards of scholarship and educational attainment. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 19 September 1986: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act-Declaration made pursuant to sub- section 12 (1), dated 29 August 1986. Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act-Order-1986-M30/86-1987 Performance. Export Control Act-Export Control (Orders) Regulations-Order-1986-No. 9-Export Control (Fees). Meat Inspection Act-Meat Inspection (Orders) Regulations-Order-1986-No. 3-Meat Inspection (Fees). Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act-Declaration under sub-section 9 (1) deeming to amend Part IV of Schedule 2 of the Act, dated 30 August 1986. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1886) Mr Scott asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 11 October 1985: (1) Was the DMSP referred to by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senate Hansard, 10 September 1985, page 328) the US Defence Meteorological Satellite Program; if not, what does DMSP stand for. (2) Is he able to say whether the mission of the DMSP is the provision of meteorological data, especially cloud imaging, to US military users. (3) Is he able to say whether the US Geosat has been transferred to DMSP funding; if so, (a) to what US program element (PE) number was it transferred and (b) from what PE number was it transferred. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. The Australian Government understands that the mission of the DMSP is to provide, through all levels of conflict consistent with the survivability of the supported forces, global visible and infrared cloud data and other specialized meteorological, oceanographic and solar-geophysical data required to support world wide DOD operations and high-priority programs. Timely data are supplied to the Air Force Global Weather Center, the Navy Fleet Numerical Oceanography Centre, and to deployed tactical receiving terminals worldwide. (3) Yes. (a) 31560N. (b) 64363N. (Question No. 2601) Mr Hunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 20 November 1985: Which questions placed on notice within the last (a) month, (b) 6 weeks, (c) 2 months, (d) 3 months, (e) 4 months, and (f) 6 months to 19 November 1985 had not received a final answer at that date. Mr Howe —The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) Question Nos 2301, 2329, 2472, 2503, 2531 and 2564 (b) Question Nos 575 (Senate), 2049, 2077, 2113 and 2148 (c) Question Nos 561 and 562 (Senate) and 1934 (d) Question Nos 548 (Senate), 1571, 1796 and 1875 (e) Nil (f) Question Nos 1236 and 1287. (Question No. 3346) Mr Donald Cameron asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 13 March 1986: Further to the answer to questions Nos. 3216 to 3243, what (a) was the stated purpose of each overseas trip made by employees of the Minister's Department and of all statutory authorities that report to the Minister in 1984-85, (b) was the classification or job description of each officer making each trip, (c) was the duration of each trip, (d) were the countries visited during each trip and (e) was the estimated cost of each trip, with the air fare component identified separately. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The following information is in respect of short-term travel commenced during 1984-85 which was funded by the Department or statutory authorities. It therefore excludes officers travelling to (or returning from) an overseas posting and visits funded by the international travel vote of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Officer's Name Purpose of Visit Classification of Officer Duration of Travel Countries Visited Airfare Travel Allowance $ $ DEPARTMENT OF TRADE J. Gutteridge International Trade Development Centre Trade Display Briefings TC ``C'' 3.7.84- 14.7.84 Pakistan, Sri Lanka 3,200 1,980 R. Cox Agro-Technology Mission Class 9 3.7.84- 12.7.84 Malaysia 2,834 1,080 P. King SPARTECA Regional Committee on Trade Class 8 6.7.84- 19.7.84 Kiribati 1,502 1,442 B. Gregory SPARTECA Regional Committee on Trade Asst Sec 6.7.84- 19.7.84 Kiribati 1,740 1,800 W. Hamblin Install Computer Systems Class 10 7.7.84- 8.8.84 Hong Kong/ Thailand 2,800 5,100 G. Thomson ASEAN Discussions and Ministerial Meeting Principal Adviser 11.7.84- 14.7.84 Indonesia 3,500 800 N. Coppel China Action Plan Class 8 12.7.84- 28.8.84 China 3,400 5,172 G. Bellchambers Trade Mission-Australia/China Iron and Steel Asst Sec 12.7.84- 3.8.84 China 3,800 2,800 A. McCallum Trade Mission-Australia/China Iron and Steel Asst Sec Equiv 12.7.84- 3.8.84 China 3,800 2,800 P. Foldi China Action Plan Class 9 14.7.84- 26.7.84 China 3,600 900 M. Holmes Auckland Trade Display Class 8 19.7.84- 30.7.84 New Zealand 920 1,200 E. Juska Auckland Trade Display Class 8 21.7.84- 11.8.84 New Zealand 920 1,200 B. Jacobs ASEAN Australia Economic Cooperation Program/Trade and Investment Promotion Program Class 9 21.7.84- 27.7.84 Burma/ Thailand 2,614 1,080 J. Hardin ASEAN Australia Economic Cooperation Program/Trade and Investment Promotion Program Class 9 21.7.84- 27.7.84 Burma/ Thailand 2,614 1,080 R. Davenport ASEAN Australia Economic Cooperation Program/Trade and Investment Promotion Program Class 9 21.7.84- 28.7.84 Thailand 2,834 1,800 M. Smee ASEAN Australia Economic Cooperation Program/Trade and Investment Promotion Program Class 9 25.7.84- 11.8.84 Burma/ Thailand 2,614 2,200 P. Quang Discussions on Japan Market Strategy Class 9 3.8.84- 23.8.84 Japan 2,538 2,400 J. Wilcox Coal Discussions FAS 8.8.84- 14.8.84 India 3,800 1,320 S. Gorter Post Audits Class 6 11.8.84- 16.9.84 South Africa/ Japan/Italy 3,800 4,000 P. Hall Post Audits Class 10 11.8.84- 16.9.84 South Africa/ Japan/Italy 3,800 4,000 K. Barker Meetings on Prime Minister's Regional Initiative Class 11 12.8.84- 6.9.84 Malaysia/ Singapore 3,600 3,030 G. Thomson Meetings on Prime Minister's Regional Initiative Principal Adviser 12.8.84- 6.9.84 Indonesia/ Brunei/Japan Thailand 4,790 5,060 G. Compton Discussions on Market Research on Licence Procedures and Usage Class 9 20.8.84- 22.8.84 New Zealand 954 300 B. Ryan Install Computer Systems Class 9 26.8.84- 30.8.84 New Zealand 954 720 N. Lind Senior Executive Fellowship Asst Sec 28.8.84- 10.11.84 Thailand/ Germany/ Netherlands/ Switzerland/ France/Italy/ USA/Canda 5,027 18,260 R. Bopp Accompany Queensland Confederation of Industry Delegation under Commonwealth/State Trade Pomotion Program Class 11 31.8.84- 20.9.84 Italy/ France/UK 2,500 2,940 E. Turner Post Management Reviews Class 10 3.9.84- 8.10.84 USA/Mexico 4,450 5,580 D. Taylor Post Management Reviews Asst Sec 3.9.84- 8.10.84 USA/Mexico 5,025 6,820 F. Crawford Post Liaison Asst Sec 6.9.84- 5.10.84 USA/Canada/ Venezuela 6,067 4,290 B. Nicholls Offshore Oil Support Service and Equipment Mission TC ``C`` 11.9.84- 23.9.84 China 3,850 3,000 J. Alparslan Boneless Mutton Mission/Meetings with Government Officials and Industry Representatives TC ``B`` 13.9.84- 8.10.84 Turkey/Egypt 4,812 2,500 E. Durham Accompany Minister Steno Sec. 13.9.84- 30.9.84 Brazil/ Bulgaria Czechoslavakia/ Romania/Italy 4,200 3,200 J. Wilcox Accompany Minister FAS 15.9.84- 30.9.84 Brazil/ Bulgaria Czechoslavakia/ Romania/Italy 7,655 3,520 R. Wilson Mixed Commission Meeting-Romania Attend Plovdin Fair-Bulgaria Class 11 15.9.84- 2.10.84 Romania/ Bulgaria 4,200 3,200 J. Doueihi Trade Discussions TC ``B'' 17.9.84- 28.10.84 Lebanon/Turkey 4,069 7,290 R. Bush Trade Development Council Survey Mission Class 11 18.9.84- 3.10.84 Republic of Korea/ Hong Kong 3,576 1,680 P. King SPARTECA Meeting Class 8 19.9.84- 30.9.84 New Zealand 993 759 B. Meere Executive Committee Meeting of Tin Producing Countries-Brazil. Lead and Zinc Study Group Meetings-UK/Switzerland Principal Adviser 27.9.84- 27.10.84 Brazil/UK/ Switzerland 6,000 3,360 W. Newton Accompany Minister for Housing and Construction/Joint Trade Commission Talks-China. Market Strategy Discussions-Hong Kong Class 11 4.10.84- 29.10.84 China/ Hong Kong 3,610 2,700 E. Hodge Finalise Allocation Procedures for Exclusive Australian Licences Class 11 8.10.84- 12.10.84 New Zealand 993 720 G. Compton Finalise Allocation Procedures for Exclusive Australian Licences Class 9 8.10.84- 12.10.84 New Zealand 993 720 R. Miller ASEAN Joint Conference-Singapore. Joint Trade Committee-Malaysia. Market Strategy Discussions-Thailand Class 11 8.10.84- 21.10.84 Singapore/ Malaysia/ Thailand 2,614 1,599 F. Anderson Discussions on Market Strategy FAS 8.10.84- 21.10.84 Thailand 3,002 2,850 D. Gastin Discussions on Post Activities and Market Strategy-Japan. Australia/Korea Joint Trade Meeting. Australia/China Joint Trade Meeting Asst Sec 8.10.84- 27.10.84 Japan/ Republic of Korea/China 3,451 2,610 P. Barratt Joint Trade Committee Meeting-Korea. China Action Plan Discussions Dep Sec 8.10.84- 30.10.84 Republic of Korea/China 3,582 3,000 E. Exell Senior Trade Commissioner Conference Director Trade Commissioner Service 8.10.84- 13.10.84 Singapore 2,220 1,000 G. Thomson International Trade Workshop and Joint Trade Committee Discussions Principal Adviser 10.10.84- 17.10.84 Republic of Korea 3,132 1,400 J. Wishart Accompany Trade Mission of South Australian Business- men Class 8 11.10.84- 3.11.84 Bahrain/Kuwait/ Saudi Arabia/UAE/Qatar 3,500 4,600 R. Hutchinson Meeting of 19th Session of Board of Association of Iron Ore Exporting Countries-Switzerland. Follow-up meetings with officials of iron ore companies, OECD and EC Commission-UK, France, Belgium Class 11 12.10.84- 22.10.84 Switzerland/ UK/France/ Belgium 4,605 1,800 G. Tarjan Construction Industry Mission Asst Sec 13.10.84- 2.11.84 Singapore/Indonesia/ Thailand/ Malaysia 3,145 3,960 H. White Construction Industry Mission Class 8 13.10.84- 2.11.84 Singapore/Indonesia/ Thailand/ Malaysia 3,000 3,780 R. Hopkins Trade Fair Class 9 14.10.84- 2.11.84 Singapore 1,500 3,420 C. Teese EC/Australia Consultation on GATT New Round-Belgium. GATT Meeting-Switzerland. Attend Meeting at Trade Policy Research Centre-UK Dep. Sec. 15.10.84- 31.10.84 Belgium/ Switzerland/UK 4,603 3,520 P. Fisher Building Equipment Display Class 8 17.10.84- 22.10.84 PNG 850 900 R. Wright Asia '84 Show Class 9 18.10.84- 2.11.84 Singapore 2,060 3,420 R. Vine High Level Mission on Coal and Steel-making Raw Materials-Japan. Discussions with Power Utilities-Hong Kong Asst Sec 19.10.84- 27.10.84 Japan/Hong Kong 2,995 1,980 W. Pearson Joint Trade Committee/Joint Study Group on Iron and Steel Class 11 21.10.84- 10.11.84 China 3,090 1,200 I. MacFarlane Market Survey for Aust. Railway Products Class 11 23.10.84- 15.12.84 Singapore/Thailand/ Malaysia 2,756 3,500 G. Hill West Europe Integrated Market Plan Meeting Asst Sec 24.10.84- 15.11.84 France 5,000 4,840 C. Jones International Trade Fair Class 9 28.10.84- 20.11.84 Iraq 3,166 4,617 E. Exell Trade Commissioner Conference/Discussions with Posts Director Trade Commission Service 28.10.84- 9.11.84 China/Japan 5,264 3,080 G. Bellchambers Iron & Steel Technical Workshop Asst Sec 28.10.84- 6.11.84 China 3,800 1,000 P. Pond Trade Development Council Survey Mission Class 9 1.11.84- 18.11.84 Malaysia/Brunei 2,990 2,200 D. Gebbie ESCAP Meetings Class 11 3.11.84- 14.11.84 Thailand 2,830 1,800 T. Cross Discussions on Commercial Projects and attend Agro China '84 Class 8 7.11.84- 2.12.84 China 4,200 3,400 B. Gregory Australia/ PNG Business Co-operation Committee Meeting. Australia/Indonesia Business Co-operation Committee Meeting Asst Sec 7.11.84- 19.11.84 PNG/Indonesia 2,800 2,600 C. Spendlove Production Engineering Components Exhibition Class 9 11.11.84- 6.12.84 Indonesia 3,080 4,500 G. Beringer Processed Food Promotion Committee Meeting TC ``B'' 13.11.84- 17.11.84 Malaysia 2,138 880 G. Carroll Discussions on Commercial Projects and attend Agro China '84 Class 10 16.11.84- 2.12.84 China 3,170 2,800 J. Glenn Post Liaison Asst. Sec. 16.11.84-15.12.84 Iran/Algeria/ Saudi Arabia 5,100 6,380 P. Yuile Discussions on Commercial Projets and attend Agro China '84 Class 11 17.11.84- 2.12.84 China 3,170 2,580 J. McCumstie Production Engineering Components Exhibition Class 9 19.11.84- 8.12.84 Indonesia 3,080 3,420 T. Larkin Represent Minister at International Bauxite Association Council Meeting FAS 20.11.84- 1.12.84 Jamaica 5,000 3,000 C. Teese Discussions on Sugar and Steel Dep Sec 20.11.84- 8.12.84 UK/USA 4,900 3,060 C. Pennifold Investors Forum Class 8 23.11.84- 4.12.84 Fiji 1,540 1,470 N. Lind Discussions on Motor Vehicle Arrangements Asst Sec 26.11.84- 30.11.84 New Zealand 860 1,100 P. Jenkins Discussions on Motor Vehicle Arrangements Class 11 26.11.84- 30.11.84 New Zealand 847 900 I. Taylor Steel Negotiations Class 11 26.11.84- 9.12.84 USA 4,887 1,800 C. Elliott Trade Display Class 8 4.12.84- 9.12.84 Thailand 2,834 980 D. Chan Bilateral Safeguards Missions Class 9 18.1.85- 4.2.85 USA/Canada 4,840 2,800 C. Teese Preparatory Talks in USA and with EC Commission re to Prime Minister's Visit Dep Sec 24.1.85- 11.3.85 USA/Belgium 5,375 2,220 T. Lorenz Saudi Arabian Food Fair Class 9 1.2.85- 21.2.85 Saudi Arabia 3,230 3,600 P. Cahir Saudi Arabian Food Fair Class 7 1.2.85- 21.2.85 Saudi Arabia 3,230 3,600 P. Johnson Mining Equipment Trade Mission Class 8 6.2.85- 28.2.85 India 3,080 3,000 N. Lind Accompany Minister Asst Sec 6.2.85- 7.2.85 New Zealand 947 220 W. Hamblin Install Computer System Class 10 9.2.85- 2.3.85 New Zealand 867 2,500 A. Greenup Install Computer System Class 8 9.2.85- 5.3.85 New Zealand 867 2,851 G. Jones Discussions on Pig Meat and Beef Special Trade Representative 10.2.85- 22.3.85 Singapore/ Malaysia 2,724 3,050 W. Andree Auckland Furniture Display Class 9 12.2.85- 27.3.85 New Zealand 850 6,000 P. Webb Post Management Review Asst Sec 15.2.85- 11.3.85 Japan/Republic of Korea 5,200 4,620 P. Brewer Post Management Review Class 8 15.2.85- 11.3.85 Japan/Republic of Korea 4,900 3,875 M. Smee SPARTECA Article VIII Consultations Class 9 17.2.85- 27.2.85 PNG/Vanuatu/ Solomon Is. 2,037 1,812 C. Pennifold SPARTECA Article VIII Consultations Class 8 17.2.85- 27.2.85 PNG/Vanuatu/ Solomon Is. 2,037 1,812 G. Thomson Meetings on Prime Minister's Regional Initiative Principal Adviser 19.2.85- 25.3.85 PNG/Malaysia 1,300 6,300 P. Raye Agriculture Equipment Mission Class 7 19.2.85- 25.3.85 PNG 1,300 6,300 M. Newman International Trade Fair Class 8 20.2.85- 25.3.85 Algeria 4,500 6,400 R. Thomas Bilateral Nuclear Policy Consultations Asst Sec 22.2.85- 18.3.85 Japan/ France/Italy 5,950 4,502 R. Ross Agriculture Field Days Class 8 25.2.85- 27.3.85 Saudi Arabia 3.200 5,900 B. Greenberger Agriculture Field Days Class 9 2.3.85- 26.3.85 Saudi Arabia 3,230 3,900 K. Baker Dairy Products Council Meeting Asst Sec 2.3.85- 12.3.85 Switzerland 4,600 2,260 M. Adams Research into China's Grain Import Requirements Class 10 3.3.85- 25.3.85 China 3,171 3,960 S. Ryan Discussions on Trade and Investment Promotion Program Class 11 3.3.85- 11.3.85 Brunei/ Indonesia 3,024 1,980 D. Kenyon Trade Discussions on Multilateral Economic/Trade Issues Asst Sec 5.3.85- 8.3.85 New Zealand 1,100 880 R. Rutkowski Equipment Products Meeting Class 8 7.3.85- 28.3.85 Fiji 900 1,080 G. Hall Southern Machinery Show Class 9 9.3.85- 20.3.85 New Zealand 864 1,200 G. Thomson Accompany Minister for Primary Industry Principal Adviser 9.3.85- 25.3.85 USA/Canada 5,800 3,900 W. Pearson Discussion on Iron and Steel Class 1 10.3.85- 18.3.85 China 3,080 1,400 J. Menadue Trade Discussions Secretary 14.3.85- 20.3.85 Japan 3,600 2,400 P. Gallagher Accompany Secretary Class 11 14.3.85- 20.3.85 Japan 3,100 1,080 M. Smee Trade and Investment Promotion Program Planning Meetings Class 9 19.3.85- 27.3.85 Indonesia/ Singpore/ Malaysia 2,608 1,440 E. Exell Accompany Minister Director Trade Commissioner Service 19.3.85- 3.4.85 Ireland/ UK/ France 5,506 1,700 I. Magryn Discussions on Closer Economic Relations with NZ Government Class 8 19.3.85- 22.3.85 New Zealand 867 540 E. Hodge Discussions on Closer Economic Relations with NZ Government Class 10 19.3.85- 22.3.85 New Zealand 867 540 R. Miller Discussions on Trade and Investment Promotion Program Class 11 19.3.85- 27.3.85 Philippines/ Indonesia 2,840 1,400 A. Oxley Accompany Minister Special Adviser 24.3.85- 27.3.85 Switzerland 4,402 660 S. Ryan Conduct Marketing Seminars Class 11 31.3.85- 23.4.85 China 3,170 1,980 B. Ryan Install Computer Systems Class 9 7.4.85- 10.5.85 Malaysia/ Japan 4,020 5,500 J. Doueihi Trade Discussions TC ``B'' 10.4.85- 23.5.85 Lebanon 4,069 7,650 J. Menadue Post Liaison and World Trade Conference Secretary 13.4.85- 23.4.85 USA 7,220 2,200 M. Carter Accompany Secretary Class 8 13.4.85- 23.4.85 USA 7,200 1,620 R. Vine Expansion of Coal Trade to Europe Asst Sec 19.4.85- 1.5.85 France/Italy 5,459 2,400 G. Beringer SPARTECA Article VIII Consultations TC ``B'' 21.4.85- 4.5.85 Fiji/Tonga/ Western Samoa/ Cook Is/ New Zealand 2,400 1,200 B. Gregory SPATECA Article VIII Consultations Asst Sec 21.4.85- 4.5.85 Fiji/Tonga/ Western Samoa/ Cook Is/ New Zealand 2,400 1,200 W. Pearson Discussions on Coal Industry Services Class 11 21.4.85- 9.5.85 China 3,058 3,240 M. Carney Discussions on Coal Industry Services Class 9 21.4.85- 9.5.85 China 3,058 3,240 P. Field Accompany Minister and Secretary at Bilateral Trade Talks-Japan and Republic of Korea. Pursue Light Railway System project-Hong Kong FAS 24.4.85- 4.5.85 Japan/Republic of Korea/ Hong Kong 3,800 2,000 G. Thomson Accompany Minister and Secretary at Bilateral Trade Talks Principal Adviser 26.4.85- 4.5.85 Japan/Republic of Korea 4,420 1,760 J. Menadue Accompany Minister at Bilateral Trade Talks Secretary 26.4.85- 4.5.85 Japan/Republic of Korea 3,900 1,760 J. Glenn Post Liaison Asst Sec 26.4.85- 22.5.85 Bahrain/ Kuwait/Egypt 4,475 5,500 P. Connolly Meeting of ADAB Regional Representatives-Malaysia. Meeting with Asian Development bank-Philippines FAS 2.5.85- 10.5.85 Malaysia/ Philippines 3,280 1,300 G. Jones Meeting of Pacific Basin Economic Committee Special Trade Representative 3.5.85- 17.5.85 New Zealand 967 1,200 A. Greenup Install Computer Systems Class 8 4.5.85- 11.5.85 New Zealand 967 1,260 R. Wilson USSR Business Council Mission Class 11 10.5.85- 25.5.85 USSR 5,109 2,520 G. Bellchambers Post Liaison Asst Sec 12.5.85- 29.5.85 Hong Kong/ China/Japan 3,900 3,000 P. Field Accompany Minister FAS 15.5.85- 16.5.85 New Zealand 900 200 K. Barker Accompany Minister Class 11 15.5.85- 16.5.85 New Zealand 900 200 B. Ryan Install Computer Systems Class 9 18.5.85- 23.5.85 Hong Kong/ Japan/Philippines 3,514 900 W. Newton Discussions on Customs Matters Affecting Australia/China Trade Class 11 19.5.85- 6.6.85 China 3,510 2,400 F. White Trade Mission to Anhui Province Class 8 19.5.85- 6.6.85 China 3,510 2,400 K. Barker Accompany Minister Class 11 19.5.86- 26.5.85 Indonesia/ Singapore/ Thailand 3,950 1,480 R. Miller Accompany Minister Class 11 19.5.85- 26.5.85 Indonesia/ Singapore/ Thailand 3,950 1,480 C. Spendlove Paris Air Show Class 8 19.5.85- 20.6.85 France 4,840 4,920 I. Anderson Seminars on Australian System of Tariff Preferences for Developing Countries Class 11 27.5.85- 14.6.85 Malaysia/Thailand/ Philippines 3,103 3,240 G. Kelly Paris Air Show/Post Liaison Asst Sec 28.5.85- 19.6.85 France/ Switzerland 5,120 5,280 W. Hamblin Install Computer Systems Class 10 31.5.85- 16.7.85 Bahrain/Kuwait 4,900 8,200 P. McNamara Accompany Tasmanian Government Mission on Trade in Primary Products Class 9 31.5.85- 16.7.85 China 4,092 2,340 G. Conroy Trade Discussions Class 11 1.6.85- 30.6.85 Greece/Italy/ FRG/Norway/ Belgium/ France/UK 5,083 6,000 T. Cross Hamilton Field Days Class 9 1.6.85- 22.6.85 New Zealand 950 1,300 J. Stitt Hamilton Field Days Class 8 1.6.85- 22.6.85 New Zealand 950 1,300 K. Maniatis Ministerial Meeting on Aust/NZ Closer Economic Relations Agreement Class 8 3.6.85- 7.6.85 New Zealand 872 400 N. Lind Ministerial Meeting on Aust/NZ Closer Economic Relations Agreement Asst Sec 3.6.85- 7.6.85 New Zealand 980 800 P. Jenkins Ministerial Meeting on Aust/NZ Closer Economic Relatins Agreement Class 11 3.6.85- 7.6.85 New Zealand 872 400 K. Baker Aust/NZ Joint Dairy Industry Consultative Committee Asst Sec 4.6.85- 6.6.85 New Zealand 980 440 J. Menadue Accompany Minister Secretary 5.6.85- 23.6.85 Japan 4,900 6,400 D. Gribble Discussions with Agricultural Officials-USA, Canada. Australia/EC Minsterial Consultations-Belgium Principal Adviser 6.6.85- 23.6.85 USA/Canada/ Belgium 5,850 3,700 D. Fisher Aust/EC Ministerial Consultations Class 11 6.6.85- 22.6.85 Belgium 4,800 2,800 J. Anning International Food Processing Exhibition Class 8 7.6.85- 30.6.85 China 3,880 4,140 G. Bellchambers Aust/Japan Ministerial Meeting Asst Sec 12.6.85- 20.6.85 Japan 3,500 1,600 R. Davis Aust/Japan Ministerial Meeting Class 11 12.6.85- 20.6.85 Japan 2,850 1,230 P. Barratt Transport Mission Dep Sec 23.6.85- 9.7.85 China 4,500 2,100 W. Smith Aust/Poland Mixed Commission Meeting. Discussions on World Bank Livestock Industry Project-Hungary Class 7 28.6.85- 17.7.85 Poland/Hungary 4,847 3,960 AUSTRALIAN OVERSEAS PROJECTS CORPORATION I. Lloyd Negotiate Kroh Project claims and discuss Lahat Project with Ministry of Defence-Malaysia. Investigate project opportunities-Thailand/Hong Kong Chairman 28.8.84- 4.9.84 Malaysia/ Thailand/ Hong Kong 3,954 3,455 K. McKechnie Negotiate Kroh Project claims and discuss Lahat Project with Ministry of Defence-Malaysia. Monitor Project performance-Singapore Managing Director 28.8.84- 4.9.84 Malaysia/ Singapore 2,336 2,724 H. O'Donnell Discussions re Projects Project Planner 10.9.84- 29.9.84 Bahrain/ Qatar/ Kuwait/ Egypt/ Saudi Arabia 3,981 5,540 J. Coates Attend meetings with Bollig/Clough/Ministry of Defence Project Planner 13.9.84- 22.9.84 Malaysia 1,936 2,634 S. Mascoll Project negotiations and new project investigations Gen. Man. Projects 7.10.84- 25.10.84 Indonesia/ Singapore/ Malaysia/ Thailand/ Philippines 3,129 4,574 D. Inkson Discussions/Negotiations re Project Opportunities and Developments-Middle East. Discussions re Projects-Thailand Project Planner 19.11.84- 13.12.84 Bahrain/ Saudi Arabia/ Egypt/ Kuwait/ Qatar/ Thailand 3,800 6,052 R. Adair Talks on: Turfcraft project; Landscape Maintenance Gen. Man. Commercial 1.2.85- 8.2.85 Kuwait 3,172 3,230 S. Mascoll Accompany Joint Venture members to discussions on project with various Indonesian Government officials Gen. Man. Projects 24.2.85- 8.3.85 Indonesia 2,358 4,608 H. O'Donnell Represent AOPC at official meetings Project Planner 9.3.85- 26.3.85 Saudi Arabia 3,674 5,854 D. Inkson Discussions/Negotiations re Project Opportunities and Developments Project Planner 1.5.85- 21.5.85 Bahrain/ Saudi Arabia/ Kuwait/ Egypt 2,808 3,433 D. Falconer Accompany Department of Trade Delegation to China Gen. Man. Projects 23.5.85- 31.5.85 China 3,962 775 D. Falconer Attend China Construction '85 Conference Gen. Man. Projects 19.6.85- 14.7.85 China 7,130 4,344 EXPORT FINANCE INSURANCE CORPORATION L. Edgecombe Discussions with Djajanti Group Asst. Gen. Manager 29.7.84- 2.8.84 Indonesia 2,340 3,500 L. Edgecombe Discussions with Trade Commissioners Asst. Gen. Manager 28.12.84- 15.1.85 UK 4,200 3,500 C. O'Heir Discussions with Trade Commissioners Asst. Gen. Manager 28.12.84- 15.1.85 UK 4,200 3,500 I. Clark Discussions with Trade Commissioners Class 9 28.12.84- 16.1.85 UK 4,200 2,785 C. O'Heir Discussions with Djajanti Group Gen. Manager 25.1.85- 3.3.85 Indonesia 2,070 1,900 D. Hill Berne Union Meeting Dep. Managing Director 13.2.85- 27.2.85 Italy 4,393 2,465 K. Ryan Berne Union Meeting Class 11 14.2.85- 6.3.85 Italy 4,393 2,023 L. Edgecombe Discussions with Djajanti Group Asst. Gen. Manager 27.2.85- 4.3.85 Indonesia 2,070 1,136 A. Hislop Export Finance Contracts General Manager 26.3.85- 30.3.85 Indonesia 2,700 1,093 D. Hill Export Finance Contracts Dep. Managing Director 21.4.85- 25.4.85 Hong Kong 2,906 1,187 S. Burton Berne Union Meeting-Netherlands. Discussions with Ministry of International Trade and Industry-Japan Managing Director 21.5.85- 11.6.85 Netherlands/ Japan 6,890 4,352 A. Hislop Berne Union Meeting General Manager 23.5.85- 4.6.85 Netherlands 4,516 2,360 P. Swan Berne Union Meeting Class 8 23.5.85- 9.6.85 Netherlands 4,776 2,897 (Question No. 3379) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 13 March 1986: (1) What progress has been made since mid-1985 in speeding up matters listed for attention in the Closer Economic Relations (CER) Agreement. (2) What matters has his Department listed for discussion during the 1988 CER review. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The matters listed in the Agreement for further attention can broadly be grouped into those relating to: (i) the completion of certain measures already covered in the Agreement, e.g. liberalisation arrangements, government purchasing, export incentives; and (ii) subjects such as investment, taxation, commercial law, transport and movement of people which are potentially suited to further arrangements in the context of closer economic relations. A report on developments in these matters and, where appropriate, further action to be taken is provided in the joint communique and related documents which were released following the Australia-New Zealand Ministerial meeting in August 1985. Progress has been made subsequently on arrangements to eliminate licensing on a range of goods of Australian origin from 1 July 1986, on procedures for examining the scope for harmonisation of food standards and industrial property laws, and on New Zealand's participation in the State Preference and Industry Restructuring Advisory Committee (SPIRAC) as an observer. Discussions are continuing at officials level on liberalisation arrangements for trans-Tasman trade in steel and apparel. The de- regulatory initiatives taken by the Australian Government in the area of foreign investment policy should also facilitate trans-Tasman investment. Consideration of other matters is continuing. (2) I have recently invited contributions from interested groups and individuals on matters which might be reviewed in 1988 and accordingly a finite list has not been prepared at this stage. A number of matters for review are listed in Article 22 of the Trade Agreement. Other suggestions involve the inclusion of services within the free trade framework and other forms of economic association such as a Customs Union. These and other matters are to be the subject of further study and consideration by the Government and as appropriate will form the basis of consultations with the New Zealand Government in 1987 in further preparation for the review. (Question No. 3651) Mr Conquest asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: Is he able to state what efforts have been made recently to increase Australia's share of the red meat market in Japan. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Access to the Japanese beef market is strictly controlled by a system of global quotas and the state trading activities of the Japanese Livestock Industry Promotion Corporation. As a result, demand for beef is severely constrained by artificially high prices. Successive Australian Governments have sought to increase the level of beef access to Japan. Some success has been achieved in this regard as evidenced by the beef access agreements we have negotiated with the Japanese Government, although we are convinced there remains a large unsatisfied demand. The present agreement, the second such agreement in recent years, provides for the expansion of global quotas from 141,000 tonnes in Japanese fiscal year 1983 (April-March) to 177,000 tonnes by JFY 1987. While the overall level of Australia's beef exports to Japan has continued to rise, our share of the quotas has declined significantly-from approximately 80% in the 1970's to 60% at present. The major reason for this has been the increasing access for high quality grain-fed beef from the United States in the face of relentless pressure which the US has exerted on Japan as a result of the bilateral trade imbalance between the two countries. The US's share of the quotas has increased from virtually nil in the early 1970's to about 40% at the present time and, when account is taken of the so called ``diaphragm beef'' which is supplied outside of quota, the US supplies more beef to Japan than Australia. The Australian Government and our industry have been working continuously to improve our position in the Japanese market. The Government has consistently registered its concern at both Ministerial and official levels at the discrimination in favour of high quality beef sources from the States and impressed on the Japanese the importance Australia attaches to growing access to its market for our meat. During my recent official visit to Japan I discussed meat trade with Japanese Ministers and reaffirmed Australia's very strong concern over the need for fair and growing access to their market for Australian meat. I also formally presented to the Japanese Government a submission by Australia to Japan's Agricultural Policy Deliberation Council, which has been asked by the Japanese Government to conduct a major mid-term review of agricultural policy in Japan. This submission stresses Australia's interest in expanding the Japanese market for beef on a basis which would provide substantial benefits to Japanese consumers and appropriate adjustments in Japan's beef production and import policies. It also points out the advantages of a change in Japanese self-sufficiency policies to take account of the scope which clearly exists for Japan to secure a greater proportion of its food supplies through international trade. The Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation (AMLC) is presently undertaking a major research effort aimed at gathering commercially-oriented information about the Japanese beef market. This research has three primary objectives: (a) to provide commercially oriented input into the next round of beef negotiations with Japan to ensure Australia achieves the maximum possible commercial advantage from the next beef access agreement (b) to provide market information to underpin the development of Australia's lot-fed beef trade with Japan (c) to provide a basis for future beef promotional programs in Japan. In addition the AMLC is trying to develop a more positive image for Australia's beef in Japan and to encourage our exporters to exploit the new (albeit small) marketing channels in that country, such as the Simultaneous Buying and Selling (SBS) system and the Demand Development Quota. Also at the industry level, Australian beef producers are endeavouring to obtain better understanding of and cooperation with the Japanese beef industry through a series of reciprocal missions and visits. In the medium term, however, the most important single determinant of Australia's market share will be the terms of the successor beef agreement which will replace the current agreement when it expires in March 1988. The Australian Government and the industry are actually aware of the importance of those negotiations and are working together to develop a strategy which will best protect Australia's long term interests in this market. As regards sheepmeat, the Japanese market is far less restrictive than for beef since there are no quantitative restrictions. Our major competitor for sheepmeat is New Zealand. Demand for mutton in Japan has been declining steadily for several years as Japanese meat processors have increasingly substituted pork for mutton in the light of consumer preferences for a higher quality product. This downward trend is expected to continue and there is a need for Australia to develop new and value added products for mutton. This matter is being taken up by the AMLC. For 1986, however, Australia's exports of mutton to Japan are expected to increase to around 50,000 tonnes. This reflects movements between the Australian and New Zealand currencies relative to the Yen and an expected decline in New Zealand production of sheepmeat this year. For lamb, the situation and outlook is much brighter and there is significant potential for increasing Australia's exports to Japan, particularly of chilled lamb. To this end, the AMLC has developed a total market strategy involving product development, the production of a lamb cutting book (the first of its kind in Japan), education of butchers and customers, in-store demonstrations and so on. The Government and the industry through the AMLC, the Sheepmeat Market Development Fund, and the Australian Lamb Promotion Fund have contributed some 40 million Yen per year since 1982 (some $390,000 a year at the present exchange rate) on developing this trade and, as a result, our exports of lamb to Japan are forecast to increase to 10,000 tonnes this year, compared with just over 7,000 tonnes in 1986. (Question No. 3997) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 20 May 1986. (1) How many (a) special trade commissioners and (b) consultants are employed by his Department and Austrade and what are the areas of responsibility for each employee. (2) What is the cost of each officer. (3) Do they have staff assigned to them, if so (a) how many, (b) at what level, (c) for what duties and (d) what is their cost. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Department of Trade (A) Special Trade Representative (1) Under the Trade Representatives Act, provision exists for the appointment of special grade Trade Representatives. These grades relate to appointments at or above a level equivalent to the Public Service Senior Executive Level 3. Currently, there are four such appointments and the respective areas of responsibility are as follows: Mr L. P. Duthie, the Special Trade Representative in Europe who is based in London, is responsible for maintaining a dialogue with both the EC Commission and the Governments of Member States on agricultural and other multilateral trade policy issues, as well as assisting in the development and integration within an overall policy framework of Australia's bilateral trade relations with the Member States. Mr A. R. Oxley, the Special Trade Representative in Geneva, manages the Department's responsibilities in relation to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and United Nations organisations with headquarters in Geneva. Mr D. G. Gastin, the Special Trade Representative in Tokyo, manages the Department's responsibilities in Japan. Mr G. S. R. Wood, the Special Trade Representative in Washington, manages the Department's responsibilities in the United States. (2) As at 20 May 1986, each officer received salary and allowances as follows: Mr Duthie: $84,278 pa (salary including responsibility loading) plus $54,510 pa (overseas allowances). Mr Oxley: $61,744 pa (salary) plus $60,453 pa (overseas allowances). Mr Gastin: $57,085 pa (salary) plus $78,570 pa (overseas allowances). Mr Wood: $57,085 pa (salary) plus $37,365 pa (allowances). (3) As at 20 May 1986, the special grade Trade Representatives had staff assigned to them as follows: (a) (i) London-4 (ii) Geneva-5 (iii) Tokyo-12 (iv) Washington-11 (b) Where necessary, the levels of Australian-based officers were expressed in Public Service equivalent term (i) London-2 SES Level 1s, 1 Clerical Administrative Class 11, 1 Clerical Administrative Class 9. (ii) Geneva-1 Clerical Administrative Class 11, 1 Clerical Administrative Class 9, 1 Clerical Administrative Class 8, 1 Steno-Secretary Grade 2, 1 Locally Engaged Staff. (iii) Tokyo-2 SES Level 1s, 1 Clerical Administrative Class 11, 1 Clerical Administrative Class 9, 1 Steno-Secretary Grade 2, 1 Steno-Secretary Grade 1, 6 Locally Engaged Staff. (iv) Washington-1 SES Level 1, 1 Clerical Administrative Class 11, 1 Clerical Administrative Class 9, 1 Steno-Secretary Grade 2, 7 Locally Engaged Staff. (c) The staff are required to assist the special grade Trade Representatives carry out their responsibilities as set out in part (1) above. (d) Annual salary and, where applicable, overseas allowance costs were: (i) London-$257,195 (ii) Geneva-$312,857 (iii) Tokyo-$712,288 (iv) Washington-$421,798 (B) Consultants The Department engages individuals or firms as consultants on contract basis to carry out specific tasks or provide specific services as required. These consultants are not Departmental employees and none have been assigned dedicated staff. The following consultancy agreements were in existence between the Department and the nominated contractors at 20 May 1986: (1) G. A. BAYUTTI Purpose: Provision of advice in relation to trade between Australia and Italy. Amount: $18,408. (2) COMPETITIVE EDGE Purpose: To determine, and inform all interested Malaysian firms about, the Australian import market for furniture and furniture components. Amount: $28,320. (3) ERU RESEARCH SERVICES PTY LTD Purpose: To build on experience of the 1984-85 Trade and Investment Promotion Program funded Philippines processed food promotion. To provide detailed information on the Australian import market for specific food products. To prepare for participation in food promotion activity to be undertaken in 1986-87. Amount: $16,396. (4) J. L. FALLICK Purpose: To provide specialist research expertise on the comparative performance of Prices and Incomes Policies and the implications for trade and trade related matters. Amount: $49,000 each calendar year. (5) DR COLM KIERNEY Purpose: To address and advise the Trade Development Council on pedagogic solutions in relation to a video for use in the Trade Development Council seminar program and for other educational purposes. Amount: $3,500. (6) CHRISTOPHER PEARSALL & ASSOCIATES Purpose: To undertake market research relevant to textiles and to produce a report for officials and companies of developing countries. Amount: $6,000. (7) PEAT, MARWICK, MITCHELL SERVICES Purpose: To inform Singapore jewellery manufacturers of the nature of the Australian import market for jewellery. To provide product adaptation advice to Singapore jewellery manufacturers and identify options for future promotional activities in Australia for Singapore jewellery manufacturers. Amount: $17,888. (8) W. D. SCOTT & CO. PTY LTD Purpose: To undertake market research relevant to rubber and rubber products and to produce a report for officials and companies of developing countries. Amount: $8,150. (9) W. D. SCOTT & CO. PTY LTD Purpose: To undertake market research relevant to automotive replacement parts and to produce a report for officials and companies of developing countries. Amount: $7,800. (10) W. D. SCOTT & CO. PTY LTD Purpose: To undertake market research relevant to household electrical goods and to produce a report for officials and companies of developing countries. Amount: $6,350. (11) W. D. SCOTT & CO. PTY LTD Purpose: To undertake market research relevant to menswear and to produce a report for officials and companies of developing countries. Amount: $7,730. (12) THE VIDEO TEAM Purpose: To produce a video of broadcast quality for use in the Trade Development Council seminar program and for other educational purposes. Amount: $50,000. Australian Trade Commission (A) Special Trade Commissioners (1) Austrade employes Special Trade Commissioners who are appointed for a term and who are responsible for specific geographical areas and/or products. At the 20th May five such specialist or Special Trade Commissioners were employed: Mr P. H. Barratt, Special Trade Representative for North Asia, who is located in Canberra and is responsible for the development and management of Australia's trading relationship with three of Australia's major trading partners-Japan, China and the Republic of Korea. Mr R. G. Jones, Special Consultant-Food and Basic Products, who is located in Sydney and is responsible for advising and assisting the Commission in the preparation of export development strategies for Primary products (e.g. pig meat, hides and skins, seafood, wine and processed foods). Mr D. C. Minnis, Special Trade Commissioner-Horticultural Industry, who is located in Melbourne and is responsible for preparing export development strategies for Australian horticultural industries, particularly in fruit and vegetables, and for assisting Australian firms in those industries to take advantage of international market opportunities. Mr D. W. Paxton, Trade Commissioner Grade C (Agriculture), who is located in Bahrain and is responsible for the promotion of Australian agricultural products in the Middle East area. Mr I. A. Smith, Trade Commissioner Grade C (Agriculture), who is located in Singapore and is responsible for the promotion of Australian agricultural products in the South East Asia area. (2) As at 20 May 1986, each officer received salary and allowances (if any) as follows: Mr P. H. Barratt: $72,300 p.a. (salary) plus $3,800 p.a. (Expense of Office Allowance) Mr R. G. Jones: $84,278 p.a. (salary) plus $3,967 p.a. (Expense of Office Allowance) Mr D. C. Minnis: $41,435 p.a. (salary), nil allowances Mr D. W. Paxton: $41,435 p.a. (salary) plus $39,440 p.a. (overseas allowances) Mr I. A. Smith: $41,435 p.a. (salary) plus $23,550 p.a. (overseas allowances) (3) As at 20 May 1986, three Special Trade Commissioners had staff specifically assigned to them; their details and cost are set out below. The remaining two officers share Commission staff resources. Mr P. H. Barratt: (a) 1. (b) Personal Secretary, Grade 1, (c) Secretarial duties, (d) $20,536 p.a. Mr R. G. Jones: (a) 1, (b) Clerical Administrative, Class 5, (c) Clerical/Secretarial duties, (d) $24,264 p.a. Mr I. A. Smith: (a) 1, (b) Stenographer, (c) Secretarial/Stenographic duties, (d) $S1,360 p.m. ($11,739 p.a.). (B) Consultants The Commission engages individuals or firms as consultants on contract basis to carry out specific tasks or provide specific services as required. These consultants are not Commission employees and none have been assigned dedicated Commission staff. The following consultancy agreements were in existence between the Commission and the nominated contractors at 20 May 1986. Consultants (1) ACI Computer Services Purpose: Provision of on-line computer facility for the Australian Trade Commission. Amount: Various fees per hour on basis of usage. (2) AGRES International Pty Ltd Purpose: Provision of consulting services to carry out a feasibility study into horticultural and post-harvest grain handling problems in China. Amount: $46,600. (3) ANTARA AACO Purpose: Provision of consulting services to carry out a feasibility study into groundwater resources in Pak Phanang River Basin, Thailand. Amount: $78,725 plus expenses. (4) Australian Chamber of Commerce Purpose: Provision of information relating to trade between Australia and Taiwan. Amount: $446,562 over 3 years. (5) Datasearch Information Services Purpose: Provision of services of P. Denton to head the Japan Market Office. Amount $49,000 per annum. (6) Mr Peter Forrest Purpose: In-house marketing consultant, Tokyo. Amount Japanese Yen 13,188,750=$131,887.00. (7) J. M. Hardin and Associates Pty Ltd Purpose: Assessment of the export capability of the Australian fashion industry. Amount $5,250. (8) Hassall and Associates P/L Purpose: Provision of consulting services to carry out a feasibility study for the establishment of an Agricultural Service and Support Organisation in Sharjah Emirate. Amount $40,000. (9) Hay Management Consultants Purpose: Introduction of incentives package for Commission senior management. Amount $4,000. (10) Helms and Associates Purpose: Conduct seminars on how to obtain Underwriters Lab approval for export products in the US market. Amount $10,650. (11) Koranya Purpose: Establishment design and review. Amount $10,000 for 2 months. (12) Ledlo Pty Ltd Purpose: Development and implementation of an export development strategy for scientific and medical equipment. Amount $80,690.10. (13) Noble Lowndes International Purpose: Production of incentives package for Commission's senior managers. Amount $5,000 + expenses. (14) Polymex Consultants Purpose: Survey of attitudes of Australian exporters towards Austrade's services. Amount $40,000. (15) Price Waterhouse Purpose: To provide assistance in developing and documenting procedures to run Austrade's accounts payable and general ledger systems. Amount $18,500 + expenses. (16) Queensland Association of Consulting Surveyors Purpose: To undertake feasibility study for large scale mapping and land information system, Bangkok. Amount $52,972. (17) Scott and Furphy Engineers Purpose: To carry out a feasibility study for Solid Waste Management Project in Brunei under the Consulting Services Feasibility Study Fund. Amount $67,366. (Question No. 4079) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 25 May 1986: Has Australia yet to fully develop its trade links with India; if so, what steps have been taken to develop these links. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Trade between Australia and India in 1985-86 was valued at $599.3 million with Australian exports to India valued at $428.6 million and Australia's imports from India valued at $170.7 million in that year. Australia's imports from India in 1985-86 represented only 0.5% of Australia's total imports in that year. Australia's exports to India represented only 1.3% of Australia's total exports in 1985-86. I accepted an invitation to visit India in October 1985 and during my discussions with Indian Ministers there was agreement that trade between the two countries had not been developed to its full potential. It was also agreed that the establishment of appropriate mechanisms to encourage increasing contact between business enterprises in both countries could play an important role in increasing trade and economic relations between the two countries. The Department of Trade and the Australian Trade Commission are co-operating in developing strategies to increase two-way trade with India. In this regard and arising from my visit to India, discussions are being held with the Indian authorities with a view to establishing an Australia-India Working Group on Coal Mining to examine and implement proposals relating to the transfer of Australian coal mining technology to India. An Indian mission of coal mining technical experts visited Australia in March this year to study the scope for co-operation between the two countries in this area. I have also written to the Confederation of Australian Industry suggesting the formation of an Australia/India Business Co-operation Council under which a series of Working Groups might be formed to develop two way trade and technical co-operation between Australia and India in specific areas. I also see value in greater contact at Ministerial level between the two Governments. The Indian Minister for Steel and Mines, Mr K. C. Pant, visited Australia on my invitation in July of this year to view the scale and efficiency of the Australian coal export industry and related infrastructure, and to discuss prospects for the future development of the Indian market for coal and Australia/India coal trade. During his visit, Mr Pant was also able to view Australian expertise in the mining and minerals processing industries. My discussions with Mr Pant included reference to progress in the development of the overall economic relationship between our two countries. The Prime Minister of India, Mr Gandhi, is to visit Australia later this year and this visit will provide an opportunity to review at the highest political level, ways and means of strengthening economic relations. I hope it may also be possible for the Indian Minister for External Affairs and Commerce, Mr P. Shiv Shankar, to visit Australia at a time convenient to him in the future. In addition, regular consultations on trade and related matters are held between officials of both countries under a Joint Trade Committee established under the Australia/India Trade Agreement signed in 1976. The next meeting is to be held in New Delhi towards the end of this year. To encourage the expansion of trade both ways assistance to India through the Department of Trade's Market Advisory Service and International Trade Development Centres is also continuing. A display of Indian products is to be held at the International Trade Development Centres in Sydney and Melbourne in October this year and an Indian Trade Mission to promote Indian products will also visit Australia in early 1987. (Question No. 4209) Mr Andrew asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 4 June 1986: (1) Has there been a sudden fall in rural export commodity prices since October 1985; if so, (a) which commodities have been affected, and (b) from what price and by how much has the price fallen in (i) the traded currency, and (ii) Australian dollars. (2) Is he able to state whether such commodity price falls are associated with the introduction of the US Farm Bill. (3) What is the Government's estimate of the time it will take for US and EEC export prices to regain what Australia would consider to be reasonable levels. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. See table below. (2) Yes. (3) If Australia and like minded fair trading agricultural exporting countries succeed in their campaign to have world agricultural trade problems dealt with as an urgent priority in the forthcoming MTN Round and, as a consequence, the massive agricultural subsidy programs of the major developed countries are brought to an end, we could expect an early return to reasonable prices for Australia's major agricultural export commodities. RURAL EXPORT COMMODITY PRICES (15) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Mutton Ac per kg Live Sheep A$ Beef US$ per kg Ac per kg Wheat US$ per tonne A$ per tonne Barley US$ per tonne A$ per tonne Sugar USc per lb Ac per lb Cotton USc per lb Ac per lb 1985 October... 76.5 17.63 201.5 245.6 147 209 85 121 5.01 7.13 48.84 69.47 November... 69.6 17.60 205.7 260.8 155 229 90 133 5.54 8.17 48.01 70.82 December... 69.0 18.88 208.3 265.0 161 236 90 132 5.34 7.84 48.38 71.03 1986 January... 62.0 18.00 203.3 251.1 155 224 88 127 4.87 7.02 51.83 74.75 February... 69.9 16.75 198.7 243.4 151 217 84 121 5.54 7.98 54.70 78.76 March... 68.3 15.94 194.0 234.0 157 224 76 108 7.07 10.06 52.35 74.51 April... 70.0 17.69 180.8 211.0 152 212 72 100 8.36 11.65 48.50 67.56 May... 75.4 16.70 184.8 214.8 140 194 68 94 7.64 10.56 45.37 62.73 Latest month variation on figure for October 1985 (+/-)... -1.1 -0.93 -16.7 -30.8 -7 -15 -17 -27 +2.63 +3.43 -3.47 -6.74 Notes: (1) Bone in full carcase mutton FAS as reported by Australian exporters. Source: Australian Meat & Livestock Corporation. (2) Live sheep (Perth) up to 50 kg per head. Source: Australian Meat & Livestock Corporation. (3) Australian Export Prices for frozen boneless manufacturing cow beef sold to USA (85 CL), average cif prices. Source: Australian Meat & Livestock Corporation. (4) Average monthly FAS prices for Australian frozen boneless manufacturing cow beef sold to USA (85 CL). Source: Australian Meat & Livestock Corporation. (5) International Wheat Council: Wheat Indicator price based on a basket of the fob export prices of seven widely traded wheats expressed in US dollars. (6) Nominal traded prices fob for feed barley-final destination Saudi Arabia; Derived from Trade Reported Prices. (7) International Sugar Organisation Sugar Prices NY Contract No. 11 Spot Price (average monthly) fob and stowed Caribbean Port in bulk. (8) World Cotton Outlook ``A'' Index; Prices of Cotton cif North Europe Medium staple 1 3/32 ''. Source: Liverpool Cotton Services through Bureau of Agricultural Economics (Index is average of 5 lowest prices of various descriptions). (9) Monthly Auction Prices for raw wool; Market Indicator Price; Weighted average-derived from figures supplied by Australian Wool Corporation to Commonwealth Secretariat (Wool Quarterly). (10) Unit Values derived from Australian Bureau of Statistics figures; For butter, figures relate to butter in blocks containing 25 kg and over; for skimmed milk powder figures relate to milk other than whey in powder or granules containing not more than 1.5% by weight of fat (skim milk). (11) Unit values derived from Australian Bureau of Statistics figures, for non processed cheddar cheese. (12) US Sorghum (No. 2) delivered US Gulf Ports. Source: Bureau of Agricultural Economics. (13) Thai White Rice 5 per cent broken fob Bangkok. Source: Bureau of Agricultural Economics. (14) Liverpool hide prices NZ freezer cow. Source: Commodity Report-NZ Ministry of Ag. & Fisheries (per Bureau of Agricultural Economics). (15) IMF: International Financial Statistics; Commonwealth Bank Daily Exchange Rates (averaged) used to convert figures as appropriate. RURAL EXPORT COMMODITY PRICES (15) (9) (10) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) Wool Ac per kg clean Skim. Milk Powder A$ per tonne Butter A$ per tonne Cheddar Cheese A$ per tonne Sorghum US$ per tonne A$ per tonne Rice US$ per tonne A$ per tonne Hides UK pence per kg Ac per kg 1985 October... 527 1050 1300 1750 87 124 210 299 145 294 November... 524 1000 2230 1740 95 140 210 310 149 317 December... 523 950 1350 1760 100 147 No quotation 156 331 1986 January... 531 910 1390 1910 98 141 240 346 155 321 February... 530 980 2280 1740 95 137 234 337 159 328 March... 526 1040 1770 2100 94 134 216 307 158 330 April... 535 1070 2450 1740 99 138 200 279 159 332 May... 549 106 147 200 277 158 333 Latest month variation on figure for October 1985 (+/-)... +22 +20 +1150 -10 +19 +23 -10 -22 +13 +12 Notes: (1) Bone in full carcase mutton FAS as reported by Australian exporters. Source: Australian Meat & Livestock Corporation. (2) Live sheep (Perth) up to 50kg per head. Source: Australian Meat & Livestock Corporation. (3) Australian Export Prices for frozen boneless manufacturing cow beef sold to USA (85 CL), average cif prices. Source: Australian Meat & Livestock Corporation. (4) Average monthly FAS prices for Australian frozen boneless manufacturing cow beef sold to USA (85 CL). Source: Australian Meat & Livestock Corportion. (5) International Wheat Council: Wheat Indicator price based on a basket of the fob export prices of seven widely traded wheats expressed in US dollars. (6) Nominal traded prices fob for feed barley-final destination Saudi Arabia; Derived from Trade Reported Prices. (7) International Sugar Organisation Sugar Prices NY Contract No. 11 Spot Price (average monthly) fob and stowed Caribbean Port in bulk. (8) World Cotton Outlook ``A'' Index; Prices of Cotton cif North Europe Medium staple 13/32''. Source: Liverpool Cotton Services through Bureau of Agricultural Economics (Index is average of 5 lowest prices of various descriptions). (9) Monthly Auction Prices for raw wool; Market Indicator Price; Weighted average-derived from figures supplied by Australian Wool Corporation to Commonwealth Secretariat (Wool Quarterly). (10) Unit Values derived from Australian Bureau of Statistics figures; For butter, figures relate to butter in blocks containing 25 kg and over; for skimmed milk powder figures relate to milk other than whey in powder or granules containing not more than 1.5% by weight of fat (skim milk). (11) Unit values derived from Australian Bureau of Statistics figures for non processed cheddar cheese. (12) US Sorghum (No. 2) delivered US Gulf Ports. Source: Bureau of Agricultural Economics. (13) Thai White Rice 5 per cent broken fob Bangkok. Source Bureau of Agricultural Economics. (14) Liverpool hide prices NZ freezer cow. Source: Commodity Report-NZ Ministry of Ag. & Fisheries (per Bureau of Agricultural Economics). (15) IMF: International Financial Statistics; Commonwealth Bank Daily Exchange Rates (averaged) used to convert figures as appropriate. (Question No. 4263) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 4 June 1986: (1) Has he acted to allay pensioner fears concerning a recommendation for the scrapping of Government subsidies on prescription drugs; if not, why not. (2) How many pensioners will be less well off if the changes contained in the IAC report on pharmaceuticals are introduced. (3) How many pensioners will not be able to afford essential prescription drugs if the cuts are made. (4) What action has he taken to determine the needs of pensioners when decisions on this recommendation are being made. (5) Had he consulted pensioner and welfare groups about this change; if so, what was the outcome of these discussions; if not, why not. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (5) The Government is currently considering the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission's Report, and is well aware of the concerns of pensioner and welfare groups. Meanwhile, as announced in the 1986/87 Budget, pensioners will continue to receive pharmaceutical benefit items free of charge. (Question No. 4276) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 5 June 1986: (1) Was Mr J. Bayutti's appointment as a consultant to his Department originally for 1 year; if so (a) how many times has his appointment been extended and (b) what was his remuneration package on each extension. (2) For what periods has Mr Bayutti not been able to work and what were his reasons in each case. (3) Was Mr J. Bayutti a referee for the position of Senior Trade Commissioner in Milan; if so, what was his recommendation. (4) If Mr Bayutti was not a referee, did he have any input into the selection process. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Mr Bayutti was engaged as a part-time consultant, initially for a 12 month period commencing September 1983. The appointment has been renewed for two further periods of 12 months (viz, commencing September 1984 and September 1985). Mr Bayutti's fee in each of the three 12 month periods has been $16,200, $17,640 and $18,408 respectively. (2) Mr Bayutti was unable to work because of illness for several months commencing in October 1985. (3) and (4) The Australian Trade Commission informs me that the answer to both these questions is no. (Question No. 4339) Mr Jull asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: (1) Has the Combat-Sim, a high technology battle simulation system, been sold to the US Army; if so, for what amount has the system been sold. (2) Where will the system be manufactured. (3) How many jobs will be created through the sale. (4) What other sales are proposed for Combat-Sim. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Combat-Sim has been released to the US Army at no cost under the ABCA agreement. The design of Combat-Sim is based upon the US Army's Battalion Automated Battle Simulation System, which was provided to the Australian Army for administrative costs only. Combat-Sim was then developed by Perceptronics Inc. California under contract to the Australian Army. (2) The system will be manufactured by Perceptronics Inc in the USA. It consists of two major component parts: computer software which models the battle situation and performs calculations, and computer hardware upon which the software runs. The Australian Army has propriety rights to the software component of Combat-Sim only. Several major points need to be made with respect to this software: (a) It cannot be used separately from two computer software packages which are owned by Perceptronics Inc. (b) The cost of effort involved in the manufacture of second and subsequent sets of software after the first set has been completed is negligible. (c) The US Army is proposing a major redevelopment of the Combat-Sim software to suit their different battlefield circumstances and the different computer hardware configuration that they have chosen. (3) No Australian jobs are expected to be created from sales of Combat-Sim. The Department is negotiating a licence with Perceptronics which will require that all further developments and enhancements to Combat-Sim systems, made by Perceptronics on behalf of the US and other armies, will be provided to the Australian Army at no extra cost. (4) It is possible that Combat-Sim could be adopted by both ABCA and other armies. The licence agreement with Perceptronics will provide for a royalty to the Commonwealth on all sales to non-ABCA armies. (Question No. 4403) Mr Staples asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) Is he able to say whether any of his predecessors received any response to the additional inquiries through the US authorities referred to in the answer of the then Minister for Defence to the question without notice appearing on pages 1579-1580 of the Hansard of 15 April 1975; if so, what was the response. (2) Will he supply any further information or otherwise bring up to date the material contained in the answer given by his predecessor to question No. 1950 (Hansard, 20 August 1975, pages 364-5). (3) Does chapter 17 of The Role of Science and Industry-Australia in the War of 1939-45 by D. P. Mellor, referred to in his predecessor's reply of 20 April 1975, need any revision or amplification having regard to information about chemical warfare experimentation during the Second World War released since the publication of Mellor's book; if so, what changes. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. During May 1975 the then Minister (Mr Barnard) was advised that no further information had resulted from enquiries in the US and that the available facts suggested that no US participation of the kind alleged had occurred. At the time the US Defense Department publicly denied all the allegations. (2) No. Although thorough searches have taken place in the interim, uncertainties noted in my predecessor's reply of 1975 remain unresolved, limited as they are by the lack of precision in the available historical records. (3) No. The history of the Royal Australian Engineers (Vol. 3 by Maj. Gen. R. R. McNicholl 1982) adds historical detail to that published up to 1975. Material furnished in response to questions in both Houses since that date provides additional detail. A World War II scientific report (Chemical Warfare Physiological Investigations carried out at Townsville, Queensland, Jan./Feb. 1943) cleared for public access in 1981 gave information on physiological tests carried out on volunteers. Nevertheless, the account of Australia's wartime chemical defence efforts as recorded in the Official War History (Vol. 5: The role of Science and Industry, D. P. Mellor) has not been found incorrect in the picture presented. (Question No. 4538) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: (1) Is it a fact that advice from Mr Ridyard, Assistant Director (Benefits Control) to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) acknowledges that Mr and Mrs Sawyer approached the Riverdale Office of his Department and confessed to misrepresentations in order to highlight various administrative and legislative problems within the Department. (2) When did the misrepresentation first come to the notice of officers of his Department. (3) Was action taken to prevent this misrepresentation; if so (a) what action and (b) when. (4) Will he supply copies of the documents relating to Mr and Mrs Sawyer's representation; if not, why not. (5) Was there any correspondence with the DPP prior to 28 May 1986 in relation to this matter; if so, what was it. (6) Did the correspondence of 28 May 1986 to the DPP provide documentary evidence or simply make assertions. (7) Is evidence usually supplied; if so, why was the practice not adopted in Sawyer's case. (8) Have Mr and Mrs Sawyer repaid any moneys to his Department; if so, (a) what amount, (b) what was the basis of the repayment and (c) how was it calculated. (9) Have Mr and Mrs Sawyer been charged with defrauding the Commonwealth; if not, why not. (10) If Mr and Mrs Sawyer have been charged, (a) what is the charge and (b) why was it laid. (11) Have people been charged with misrepresentation when no money has been lost to his Department; if so, (a) on how many other occasions and (b) what are the details of each case. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (11) The matters are sub judice and it would be improper for me to answer the questions. (Question No. 1669) Mr Jacobi asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 12 September 1985: (1) Can he indicate what State, Territory or Commonwealth Evidence Acts apply in court hearings of Commonwealth offences in Australia. (2) Are there many other State, Territory and Commonwealth statutes which contain conflicting provisions governing the evidence that can be led in Commonwealth prosecutions; if so does this cause results in proceedings for Commonwealth offences arising from similar facts to differ depending on the State or Territory in which proceedings are brought. (3) Has his attention been drawn to claims that the differences in the rules governing evidence provide an incentive for both prosecution and defence to engage in ``forum shopping''; if so, is there any substance in the claims and will he take steps to introduce a comprehensive Commonwealth Evidence Act to ensure that those accused of Commonwealth offences are tried by the same rules in all courts. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Evidence Act 1905 of the Commonwealth applies to all courts hearing offences against Commonwealth laws with the exception of Part IIIa of the Act, which applies only to proceedings before the High Court and certain other courts established by the Parliament. By virtue of section 79 of the Judiciary Act 1903 the laws of each State or Territory relating to evidence are, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution or the laws of the Commonwealth, binding on all courts exercising federal jurisdiction, which would include the trial of offences against Commonwealth laws, in that State or Territory in all cases to which they are applicable. (2) I am not aware of the existence of a definitive study which makes a detailed comparison of the laws of evidence in the various Australian jurisdictions. However, to the extent to which the laws relating to evidence do vary from one State or Territory to another, it is possible that these differences could, in particular cases, lead to different results depending on the State or Territory in which proceedings are brought. (3) I am not aware of any basis for the suggestion that there is `forum shopping' in relation to the prosecution of offences against Commonwealth laws. Moreover, attention is invited to section 80 of the Constitution which provides that the trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be held in the State where the offence was committed, and if the offence was not committed within any State the trial shall be held at such place or places as the Parliament prescribes. Section 70 of the Judiciary Act provides that the trial of such an offence may be held in any State or Territory. (Question No. 1856) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 17 September 1985: (1) What are the main current military applications of geodesy and geodetic-role satellites. (2) Is he able to say whether US Transit satellites have any geodetic function following their obsolescence in the Navsat role. (3) Can he give an assurance that the Mawson and Casey stations, Antarctica, have not been used in any manner which would facilitate or progress US or Australian military-related programs; if not, why not. (4) Is it a fact that the use of any facilities in the Australian Antarctic Territory for military-related purposes would constitute a breach of Article I of the Antarctic Treaty. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Geodesy is the study of the size and shape of the earth, and geodetic satellites provide data which facilitate highly accurate mapping of the earth's surface in three dimensions and mapping of gravitational fields. Almost all military activity including navigation, guidance, survey, and reconnaissance requires such maps. (2) The US Transit satellites are not yet obsolescent in either their navigation or geodetic roles and they continue to be used for a variety of military and civil purposes. We expect that the Transit system will become obsolescent when the NAVSTAR-GPS system becomes fully operational around the end of this decade. (3) and (4) The honourable member will be aware that many, if not all, areas of scientific investigation produce results which ultimately could have either, or both, civil and military applications. Indeed it should be noted that paragraph 2 of Article I of the Antarctic Treaty permits ``the use of military personnel or equipment for scientific research or for any other peaceful purpose''. Also I draw the honourable member's attention to the fact that Australia is not the only country with facilities in the Australian Antarctic Territory-the USSR has four such facilities. However, I confirm that, pursuant to Australia's obligations under paragraph 1 of Article I of the Antarctic Treaty, Australia has not conducted ``any measures of a military nature'' in the Australian Antarctic Territory. (Question No. 4166) Mr Reith asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 2 June 1986: Which Victorian Councils: (a) applied for and (b) were successful in applying for, grants under the Local Government Development Program (i) in 1984-85 and (ii) 1985-86 and what funds were provided in each case. Mr Uren —the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a)- 1984-85 City of Broadmeadows City of Brunswick City of Coburg City of Fitzroy Cities of Kew and Hawthorn City of Melbourne City of Northcote City of Preston City of Sale Shire of Bulla Shire of Gisborne 1985-86 City of Ballarat City of Benalla City of Bendigo City of Berwick City of Box Hill City of Brighton City of Broadmeadows City of Brunswick City of Castlemaine City of Coburg City of Croydon City of Doncaster and Templestowe City of Essendon City of Fitzroy City of Frankston City of Geelong City of Hawthorn City of Heidelberg City of Keilor City of Maryborough City of Melbourne City of Moe City of Moorabbin City of Northcote City of Nunawading City of Oakleigh City of Prahran City of South Melbourne City of South Melbourne and City of Port Melbourne City of Sunshine City of Traralgon City of Warrnambool Shire of Alexandra Shire of Buninyong Shire of Cranbourne Shire of Eltham Shire of Gisborne Shire of Gordon Shire of Heytesbury Shire of Kyneton Shire of Lillydale Shire of Mornington Shire of Narracan and City of Moe Shire of Ripon Shire of Rodney Shire of Seymour Shire of Sherbrooke Shire of Strathfieldsaye Shire of Swan Hill and City of Swan Hill Shire of Upper Yarra Shire of Waranga Shire of Warracknabeal Shire of Whittlesea Shire of Buln Buln and Warragul Town of Stawell (b)- 1984-85 $ City of Broadmeadows... 50,000 City of Brunswick... 50,000 City of Coburg... 60,000 City of Fitzroy... 15,000 Cities of Kew and Hawthorn... 20,000 City of Melbourne... 45,000 City of Northcote... 3,500 City of Preston... 50,000 Shire of Bulla... 30,000 Shire of Gisborne... 60,000 1985-86 $ City of Ballarat... 50,000 City of Bendigo... 48,000 City of Berwick... 7,500 City of Box Hill... 33,493 City of Broadmeadows... 5,000 City of Castlemaine... 30,000 City of Coburg... 25,000 City of Doncaster and Templestowe... 35,000 City of Melbourne... 36,000 City of Northcote... 44,464 City of Warrnambool... 15,000 Shire of Heytesbury... 18,750 Shire of Ripon... 22,000 Shire of Swan Hill and City of Swan Hill... 30,000 Shire of Whittlesea... 35,000 (Question No. 4316) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: Has the Australian Trade Commission unsuccessfully applied to register the name Austrade or any other name with (a) the NSW Corporate Affairs Commission or (b) other registrars of trading names in Australia; if so, what are the reasons for the application being unsuccessful. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) The Commission has not sought to register the name Austrade or any other name with the NSW Corporate Affairs Commission, nor (b) other registrars of trading names in Australia. (Question No. 4539) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: (1) Has his Department provided, under the Freedom of Information Act, documents which reveal that Mrs M. Sawyer lodged a change of address advice with the Bunbury regional office of his Department that was never actioned, and that Mrs Sawyer's supporting parent's benefit was stopped by the Causeway office because mail was returned from the incorrect address. (2) Why was the change of address advice not actioned. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The matter is sub judice and it would be improper for me to answer the questions.