Tuesday, 23 September 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Madam SPEAKER —Honourable members will be aware of the presence in the chamber this afternoon of television cameras and lights. The purpose of the filming today is twofold. Sequences to be filmed with sound throughout the afternoon will form part of a video on the operations of the Parliament. That film will be part of an education kit for schools which is being produced by the Parliament for distribution to all schools in Australia during 1987. In addition, the television networks will film the proceedings during Question Time for the purpose of updating the footage used in illustrating news items. Recognising the discomfort caused by the increased lighting, I have asked that the film crews ensure that the lights remain on only for the minimum time necessary to film the footage they require. At the same time, I ask that honourable members bear with the discomfort which they may experience because of the increased lighting. Madam SPEAKER —Yesterday the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman), rising on a matter of privilege, referred to advertisements that had been placed in the Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday, 20 September, in which his electorate office telephone number had been listed without his permission, and which had caused numerous unwanted calls to his office yesterday. In order to accord precedence to a motion, as Speaker I must be satisfied that a matter has been raised at the earliest opportunity, and that a prima facie case has been made out. I am satisfied that, in the circumstances, I should regard the matter as having been raised in time. The House may regard as a contempt any act or omission which obstructs or impedes a member in the discharge of his or her duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results. As I understand the honourable member's complaint, he believes the problem has a relationship with activities in which he has been engaged in connection with visiting naval vessels. The honourable member has found that the work of his electorate office has been disrupted; it is not a matter of the honourable member being harassed or obstructed on account of his participation in proceedings in Parliament. The honourable member also advised that the matter had been referred to the police. I am not aware of any exact precedents for this set of circumstances. Nevertheless, there is a flexibility in the accepted definition of contempt which permits the House to protect itself and its members from new or novel threats or obstructions. It needs to be stated that Parliament should provide reasonable protection to the House, its committees and members from substantial interference with the performance of their functions. Having given this matter careful consideration, I am prepared to accord precedence to a motion in connection with it. Motion (by Mr Coleman) agreed to: That the matter of the disruption caused to the work of the electorate office of the honourable member for Wentworth by telephone calls made in response to false advertisements in the Sydney Morning Herald of 20 September 1986 be referred to the Committee of Privileges. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will be aware that his Treasurer lives in Canberra but claims travel allowances as though he lives in Sydney and that within an 11-month period he obtained over $17,000 in tax free allowances. I ask the Prime Minister: Why did six days go by before he answered my request for him to disclose the secret changes to the rules which it is now said enable the Treasurer to manipulate the system? Why in his reply is there no date recording the secret Cabinet decision? Is it not true that, even though the Government has tried to fiddle the system to protect the Treasurer, the Treasurer is still breaching the travel allowance rules? How does the Prime Minister explain to Australians, who are being taxed to the eyeballs by this Treasurer, that they have to play by the rules but the Treasurer does not? Mr HAWKE —In regard to the first part of the question, it is very difficult to take the Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition seriously in their conduct in this place. I replied to the Opposition Leader's request in due time. The correspondence from him was not the most important matter I had before me. It has been replied to. I should set out the facts in regard to the way in which this Government has significantly improved the situation in terms of imposing limitations upon Ministers as to the circumstances in which they claim travelling allowances. It has been the practice for a long time for members of both sides of this House to maintain residences in Canberra because of the requirement that they be in Canberra for substantial periods of the year. This has been particularly so for Ministers whose duties require them to be in Canberra for extended periods, not just during the parliamentary sitting period but throughout the year. The Treasurer is an example of that. Maintaining a second residence in Canberra, whether on a rental or a purchase basis, usually involves considerable expense for the member or the Minister involved. It is quite legitimate and reasonable that, where the second residence is not the member's or the Minister's principal place of residence, travelling allowance should be claimed as an offset to that expense. That is done by members on both sides of the House and by Ministers of this and previous governments. It is very important in such circumstances, as it is in all circumstances where expenditure of public funds is involved, that a prudent approach be not only adopted but also observed. Thus, in the Government's consideration of the 1983 Remuneration Tribunal report, the Government, having noted that the Tribunal had not provided a definition of `principal place of residence', provided specific guidance for Ministers in this area. The substance of the Cabinet decision was that as guidance for Ministers, it would be appropriate for Ministers who also maintained residences in Canberra, when absent from the principal place of residence in their home State for extended periods on official business in Canberra, to claim the appropriate travelling allowance only for the weekdays involved. The Treasurer has scrupulously adhered to that Cabinet decision. It should be appreciated that this Cabinet decision was a self-imposed limitation upon the decision of the Remuneration Tribunal. It would have been open to the Treasurer, had he so chosen, to claim days other than the weekdays. We imposed that limitation upon our Ministers and the Treasurer has scrupulously observed it. It is for the Leader of the Opposition, if he so wishes-he seems to have a very considerable interest in this matter-to disclose the practice in this matter of all members on his side of the House. We were able to impose a limitation upon our Ministers, and we did so. If the honourable gentleman opposite, who raises so piously and pompously these questions of propriety on the part of Ministers, would like to see the record of this Government compared with the record of his Government, he knows who would come out worst in that comparison. The previous Government's practice was absolutely appalling. The opportunity may well emerge for that practice to be disclosed. We were not prepared to condone the improprieties which characterised our predecessors' seven years in office. We specifically made a Cabinet decision which imposed, by our own voluntary decision, a limitation upon what would have been open under the decision of the independent Remuneration Tribunal. Mr CUNNINGHAM —Can the Special Minister of State inform the House as to the administration and payment of travelling allowances under the Government? Mr YOUNG —I thank the honourable member for McMillan for his question without notice. I was provoked into it only because the Prime Minister said that he would see that the information was made available as soon as possible. Firstly, I shall deal with the report in today's Press which said that Federal Cabinet is expected to consider shortly a submission from me on ministerial allowances. As the Parliament would know, I have responsibility for the preparation of only one submission a year on these matters, which submission goes to the Remuneration Tribunal. There is no review of the Tribunal's decisions because we have found there to be no breach of the decisions which it has made. There is no need for me to go over all the points that have been made by the Prime Minister on the carrying out of the Tribunal's recommendations in these fields. I do not point the finger at anyone in either this Government or the previous Government because I think that by and large people have complied with what has been a very difficult ruling by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has had a very difficult task in trying to deal with the fact that hundreds of people, not only parliamentarians but also staff members, travel from all over Australia to service this national Parliament. In the mid-1950s the Menzies Government started a system of giving low interest loans to Ministers for flats and houses, especially those Ministers who had responsibility for Canberra. If one goes through the list one finds that Hasluck, Freeth, Barwick, Gorton and McLeay-Ministers on both sides of the House-had access to low interest loans. Honourable members will recall that in the last period of the Fraser Government there was great controversy over the fact that the then Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anthony, was living in a house that was given to him on a 4 per cent interest loan when he was a junior Minister in 1964. He was in that house whilst Murwillumbah was his principal place of residence. That system is no longer available. It was started by the Menzies Government. It was used by the Holt, McMahon and Gorton governments and, to some extent, by the Whitlam Government, but it is not a system which is carried on. The granting of a 4 per cent loan to Ministers for houses in Canberra which they were paid travelling allowances to stay in is not a system which persists today for anybody, but it was available in those days. It was available up until a couple of years ago when I think the last person in any of those houses, Doug Anthony, resigned from this Parliament. Let us look at the system that applied under the previous Government. Whilst the present Leader of the Opposition may not have had the problem because he lives close to Canberra, in Sydney-I think that people who live in Sydney and Melbourne have a distinct advantage over people who live elsewhere in Australia-he was the Treasurer and he did have some responsibility for the system. He cannot get up in this Parliament and say: `I shall be holier than thou, but my eyes were closed from 1975 to 1983'. As the then Treasurer of the country, if he thought there was something wrong with the system, he should have done something about it. In the last year of office of the Fraser Government, Doug Anthony, with his home base at Murwillumbah and a home that he owned in Canberra on a 4 per cent loan, claimed 180 days travelling allowance with 53 days overseas. The honourable member for Gwydir, whose home was in Moree, claimed 261 days travelling allowance. Peter Nixon, who also had a home here-he owned a place on another low-interest loan-claimed for 208 days with 60 days overseas. Our old mate, the right honourable member for New England, whose principal place of residence was Bendemeer, claimed 248 days travelling plus 32 days overseas. Tony Street had his home address at Barwon Heads. Mr Gear —Where is that? Mr YOUNG —Barwon Heads is in the electorate of the honourable member for Corangamite. He had 187 days, with 69 days overseas. That was the last year. If we go back to 1981, we come to some more interesting figures. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment will give two free tickets to Crocodile Dundee to the person who can think of who claimed the most in 1981. In 1981, the right honourable member for New England had his principal place of residence at Tamworth, and he claimed 286 days. We nearly had to get Pope Gregory back to give us a new calendar to fit in his travelling allowances. He must have been crooked on home cooking. Mr Street, again at Barwon Heads, claimed 235 days travelling. The honourable member for Gwydir, again at Moree, claimed 245 days. Mr Howard —Totally irrelevant. Mr YOUNG —The Leader of the Opposition says that it is now irrelevant. It was irrelevant then, but it is relevant now. The interesting thing is that, in 1981, when the address of the right honourable member for New England was Tamworth, he spent 141 days in Canberra and 119 in Sydney. Incidentally, there has never been a submission from the coalition to the Remuneration Tribunal about changing the system-not one. Mr Sinclair —We had a Cabinet decision. Mr YOUNG —Oh yes? Tony Street, who had Barwon Heads as his principal place of residence, had 95 days in Canberra, but 134 days in Melbourne, which is not far from Barwon Heads. The honourable member for Gwydir had 216 days in Canberra. No one was pointing the finger at those people. That was the system that operated. Interestingly enough, the only thing that occurred was that, without any submission from any of the parliamentarians of the political parties, the Tribunal changed its interpretation in 1982. It used to say `home base' and then it changed it to `principal place of residence'. When I made some inquiries, the Tribunal said that it did it because of suggestions coming from the Department. The then Minister was the honourable member for Bass, Mr Newman. But it did not change anything. Someone queried it in the Senate and said that if it had been left as `home base', perhaps all the people I have mentioned would not have been entitled to claim the travelling allowances which they had claimed. But it was changed to `principal place of residence', which meant that Tamworth, Moree, Barwon Heads or whatever it may have been, could still be included as the principal places of residence. All that I say to the new members who raised this and who might not know any better-perhaps on this occasion they stand excused-is that to other people who have had to live with this difficulty for a long time, the rort in the system was the low interest loan. That is no longer available. If the national Parliament requires some people to make a decision to have two homes instead of one because of their position in the national Parliament, that is something that has to be acknowledged. If people have better ideas about the way the systems ought to apply, they should go to the Remuneration Tribunal and tell it to change the system. But to point to the Treasurer under these circumstances, when internal discipline has been applied, as the Prime Minister said-- Mr Howard —That is a joke. Mr YOUNG —There has been a limit. There was no limit on the Leader of the Opposition-286 days of travel. All I am suggesting is that the Leader of the Opposition is now cognisant of something which he thinks is wrong, but for seven years, when he was in charge of the Treasury, he did not think it was wrong. There was a Cabinet decision no one knows about which might be of interest. I would like to know what impact that Cabinet decision had and how it changed the system. It will be very interesting to hear about that from the Leader of the Opposition. This attack on the Treasurer comes about because of the complete failure and ineptitude of the Leader of the Opposition in leading a political party. Because the Leader of the Opposition is so weak, he has told his party room not to use Question Time. He is the first leader of a party operating under the Westminster system who has told his political party to forget about Question Time. He does not deserve to lead a political party. He wants to raise this matter because he cannot debate the major issues. He should ask the Treasurer about some of the major issues. He has told his party room that he will not do so because the Treasurer does him over all the time. That is what this attack is all about, and everybody in Australia should realise it. Madam SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon His Excellency Dr Abbasali Zali, Minister for Agriculture in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and Mr Fazel Harandi, Head of Agriculture Committee, Iran Parliament. On behalf of the House I extend to them a very warm welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr CARLTON —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. How can he, with any sense of honesty or decency, claim untaxed travel allowance-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will remember that if he wishes to criticise the Treasurer he will do so by way of a substantive motion. Mr CARLTON —Madam Speaker, it is a question asking for information. How can the Treasurer possibly, with any sense of honesty or decency, claim untaxed travel allowance on the basis that his principal place of residence is in Sydney when he, his wife and children live in Canberra and, on any reading of the facts, his principal, and only, place of residence must be in Canberra? Mr KEATING —It is interesting that we get these questions from the Opposition, because we have not been getting any questions about the broad thrust of public policy. The Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong, has been under a cloud for most of the period he has been Leader of the Opposition. He has emerged briefly from it only to take advantage of the problems of the economy brought upon Australia by external trading conditions. He says: `The times are for me'. In other words, he thinks he can prey on the bad times. He seeks to treat the Parliament with contempt and will not use its forums for the legitimate purposes of opposition. He says, when asked by members of the Press Gallery to explain his fiscal policy, that he will not. He gives them a dose of old Liberal Party arrogance, saying: `We are on the way back. We won't explain, and we don't need to explain'. In other words, it is a party with no policy, no framework, no structure, which does not defend itself in the Parliament, will not explain its policies, and preys on Australia's bad fortune in international markets. That is the only manifestation of the current Liberal leadership that we have seen. But now the new John Howard gets up to concentrate on my travelling allowance. That is the burning national issue. A major structural change in the economy is taking place. We are rebalancing the whole of the economic fabric of this country. We are doing what he did not do. His plundering of the manufacturing sector robbed our fight-back capacity on the current account, in the face of these depressed trading conditions. He is not interested in that. He is intent only on talking the economy down and focusing on the economic difficulties. If he thinks that the serious people in this community, those in Australian business, who want to see this country prosper are impressed by this kind of behaviour, he is gravely mistaken. As the economy responds to the Government's strength of leadership and the optimism and decency of the millions of Australians who work and invest in the economy, he will be rolled up into the dustbin of history. The concentration of the question is on my travelling allowances, and the central tenet of the question of the honourable member for Mackellar in his attack on me is that I am in some way removed from the Remuneration Tribunal's determination. Of course I am not removed from it. I am only here to do this job. If I were not, my family and I would be living as many days out of seven as possible in Sydney. If my wife and children were to return to Sydney tonight, there would be no issue here whatsoever. On the honourable member's judgment of the Remuneration Tribunal's determination, he is saying that I should do my job as Treasurer and work here six or seven days a week without my family, and expend my salary as Treasurer housing myself to enable me to do the job. Is that the honourable member's logic? Is he saying that I should use my salary of office as Treasurer to pay my rent to enable me to do the job? Of course that is nonsense. However, the system was abused shamefully by the former Government when members of it changed their place of residence during the course of the year so that in the parliamentary recess they would have their home base at Canberra but claim the allowance when elsewhere, and when the House was not in recess their home base would be elsewhere but claims would be made for visits to Canberra. That is where the 245 days, the 235 days and the 286 days came from; that is how those claims were made. In contrast, this Cabinet, at the start of its period of office, decided that there would be rules. As the Prime Minister said, this constrained Ministers who chose to carry out their jobs in Canberra by removing the capacity to claim the private component of the week, the weekend. Even though I work most weekends, or a great part of them, I claim nothing here. Let not the honourable member for Bennelong be righteous in this respect. I make the claim that the job of Treasurer cannot be done on the wire services or the facsimile machine, or by dragging stacks of staff to Canberra and, to suit himself, flying his staff to Sydney, housing them or accommodating them, as would be the case were I to choose to do that. The fact is that the honourable member for Bennelong left this country with a massive and disastrous fiscal imbalance which we have spent three years pulling down. The Cabinet meets for five months a year to pull that back. It has done so now during the course of presenting four Budgets. Major changes have been made in the tax system, which the honourable member saw plundered, ripped and raped by the tax avoiders and speculators, and he has the temerity, with his disgraceful neglect of the tax system, to talk about travelling allowances in respect of my tax obligations or my capacity under the Remuneration Tribunal. Any claim that I have made has been totally in accord with the Remuneration Tribunal and the Cabinet decision. It has been determined appropriately and properly by the Cabinet at the start of its period of office. Mr GRACE —Can the Prime Minister give the House the Government's assessment of the moves in the international community to take economic measures against South Africa? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for Fowler for his question. The 12 European Community foreign Ministers expressed their grave concern at their meeting on 15 and 16 September that South Africa had entered a new phase of increased tension under the state of emergency. They deplored the fact that the South African Government was not yet prepared to make possible a national dialogue across the lines of colour, politics and religion. In the light of this assessment, the 12 agreed that they should now adopt a package of restrictive measures. These consist of bans on new investment and on the import of iron and steel and gold coins from South Africa. Most of the 12 were also willing to implement a ban on the import of coal from South Africa, but because the agreement of all 12 is required that measure has not been endorsed. The United Kingdom presidency has undertaken to continue to seek consensus on this matter. Obviously, Australia would have preferred that the measures had gone further and had been more in line with the measures adopted at the London meeting of the Commonwealth, on which I reported to this House on 21 August. Nonetheless, we welcome these steps by the European Community. They provide a further move towards the international approach which we consider essential. The Japanese Government issued a statement on the 19th of this month noting that the situation in South Africa showed no sign of improvement and was at such a serious stage that some steps had to be taken. As a result, the Japanese have announced the introduction of new measures, including a ban on the import of iron and steel from South Africa. As I think all honourable members of the House know, in the United States of America, the Senate anti-apartheid Bill has now been passed by 308 votes to 77. The main provisions of that Bill are a ban on the import of South African uranium, coal, textiles, steel and agricultural products, no United States landing rights for South African Airways, a ban on the South African Government operating United States bank accounts except for diplomatic purposes, and an indefinite extension of the limited sanctions imposed by President Reagan's executive order last year and renewed earlier this month-that is, bans on the import of Krugerrands, United States bank loans to South Africa and certain computer technology. The Government would hope that the President will sign the Bill into law. The Australian Government regards the emerging consensus on South Africa in the international community as a vindication of the leading role that the Australian Government has played in the Commonwealth and elsewhere. It is interesting to note that in a statement issued yesterday in New York, under the heading `Imminent change needed for South African policy', the Chairman of the Opposition's foreign affairs committee, Senator Hill from South Australia, said: The Opposition should support the growing consensus in the Western world that without economic pressure from outside, South Africa will continue with its policies of entrenched racism. That is precisely the view of the Government, It is known to be shared, I must say, by other members of the Opposition as well as by Senator Hill. I might say that an obviously embarrassed honourable member for Kooyong this morning described the Opposition's policy on South Africa as `an evolving one'. That is just Libspeak for saying that he wants to dump it. The honourable member for Kooyong knows that it will not evolve under the present Leader of the Opposition until that Leader shows some real leadership and stops pandering to extremism on South Africa. The statement of the Leader of the Opposition to this House on 21 August was an extended argument against taking economic sanctions against South Africa of the kind now being increasingly introduced by the international community and now being espoused by the more enlightened members of the Opposition. I say, finally, that one would hope that the Leader of the Opposition will have the courage and the decency to bring his Party into line with responsible Western policy on South Africa and into line with that of his predecessor Malcolm Fraser. But I am afraid that he will once again, as characteristic of his discharge of the position of leadership, take his lines on this, as from so many other things, from the more reactionary people in his coalition, such as the Queensland Premier and the more reactionary members of the National Party of Australia in this place. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. How can he claim, as he did in his letter to me today and confirmed in Question Time a few moments ago, that the decision taken by the Government represents a voluntary restriction on the entitlements provided and allowed under the Remuneration Tribunal when, as a result of that so-called voluntary restriction, the Treasurer has been allowed to claim travel allowances irrespective of any bona fide test or inquiry as to his principal place of residence? Mr HAWKE —The answer I gave to the Leader of the Opposition, both in my letter to him and in this place, is in accordance with the facts. Let me look with the Leader of the Opposition at the question of the principal place of residence. The Remuneration Tribunal has provided, in its current determination on travel allowance and in similar determinations in previous years, that Ministers nominate their principal place of residence as their home base for travelling allowance purposes. On page 61 of the Tribunal's 1986 review, tabled in this Parliament-in its current report as in previous reports-it has not sought to define the term `principal place of residence'. After an inquiry from the previous Government, the Remuneration Tribunal made it clear that no close or exclusive definition of the term `principal place of residence' was possible. Mr Justice Mahoney in his advice of 17 November 1982 said: I doubt that there is any single factor that can be said to be determinative or definitive of what is a principal place of residence in all cases. I am quite happy to table that advice. It was precisely because of this lack of close definition that this Government took the decision to which I have referred. It took it in November 1983 following its election earlier that year. A further determination by the Tribunal in June of that year again did not define the principal place of residence. The decision we took was voluntarily to limit ministerial claims for travelling allowance where the Minister maintained a residence in Canberra. Obviously, the decision we took as a government was completely in line with the position that had emerged from the decisions of the Remuneration Tribunal. In terms of that decision of the Remuneration Tribunal, no one made us seek to impose any limitations upon Ministers in this place. If we had not intervened, it would have been completely consistent with the decision of the Remuneration Tribunal for it to have been open, for instance, to the Treasurer, to the extent that he worked here not only on weekdays but also on weekends-I do not think anyone would question the fact that he is often here working on weekends-to make claims beyond weekdays. In terms of the decision of the Cabinet he did not do that. His decision has been completely consistent with the decision of the Remuneration Tribunal and completely in line with the Cabinet decision of November 1983. Mr MARTIN —I refer the Prime Minister to the Government's recently announced policy on the relaxation of export controls on coal. Can he advise the House, first, whether the relaxation of these controls means that the Government has abandoned any control on coal exports? Secondly, what response has he received to this policy from the industry and the union movement? Thirdly, will national interest provisions be determined as a matter of priority to guide future negotiations of coal contracts? Mr HAWKE —I can say straightforwardly that the decision made by the Government to relax coal export controls has been taken because of the need to increase Australia's total coal export revenue. That is a decision which takes on added importance in terms of Australia's balance of payments difficulties which has sliced, as we know, some $6 billion off our national income. In those circumstances, the Government regarded it as too important to have the possible growth prospects of coal stifled. It was, in the Government's judgment, important to ensure that the marketing efforts of Australia's coal companies were not unnecessarily impeded. Let me make it clear that the decision of the Government was not made or designed to permit Australian companies to take existing market share from one another but rather to increase Australia's total share of the world coal market. The pre-existing arrangements had become impossible to administer with the Department of Trade virtually having to make a seat of the pants judgment as to what constituted negotiating parameters. We had some 40 coal companies operating in a similar number of markets-about 40-and given the increasingly volatile and competitive nature of those markets, it was becoming increasingly impossible to have any confidence that the judgment made about appropriate negotiating parameters in fact reflected the circumstances of those markets. So we made the judgment that those cumbersome procedures, which had, we thought, an increasing lack of reality and coincidence with the facts of markets, required a change. It is important to remember that the Government still retains the power to examine contract terms negotiated by coal companies before granting final approval. In other words, two layers of approval have been replaced by one. If the Government is not satisfied that those contract terms are in the national interest and if it believes that a company has been simply trying to capture market share from other companies it can and will exercise its reserve power. We have been conscious of the fact, as the honourable member knows, that there would be some understandable concern as to the potential impact of these important changes. Before they were made there was some discussion by the Minister for Trade with interests concerned. We have had discussions with Caucus members, whose electorates contain mines and who could potentially be involved or concerned. Of course, we had discussions yesterday with representatives of the coal mining unions. On the return of the Minister for Trade from his eminently successful negotiations in Punta del Este he will be having further discussions with the Australian Coal Consultative Council. I am confident that, as a result of those discussions that the Minister will have with the various interests-mine owners, mine operators and mine workers-all parties in the Australian coal industry will see that the decision that has been taken by the Government is one which is not only consistent with Australia's interests, but also is calculated significantly to advance those interests while taking full cognisance of the interests of all geographical sectors in the industry in Australia. Mr COWAN —I ask the Prime Minister: Was he elected to government in 1983 on the promise that he would reduce the price of fuel by 3c a litre. Is it not a fact that since that time the price of fuel has been increased by 13c a litre? With 3 1/2 years down the line, will he say whether he intends to honour his commitment to the Australian people? Mr HAWKE —This Government was elected overwhelmingly on the promise that it would undertake the recovery and the reconstruction of an Australian economy which had been left devastated by 7 1/2 years of incompetent and criminally negligent coalition rule. That was the promise that was made. We have been spectacularly successful in delivering on that promise. I suppose that if we could have just one test at this time of the success or otherwise of this Government's economic policy it would be that, if we had not been successful, those opposite would be bombarding us with questions on economic management and economic policy. If there is one single thing which unifies the commentary which is made upon the proceedings of this Parliament by those who have the responsibility of reporting on it, it is that the Opposition has consistently and singularly failed to address any questions of significance to this Government on its economic management. There has not been a question. As the Treasurer and the Special Minister of State have indicated, the Opposition's tactics committees-I understand there are four of them; my God, the Opposition needs either to abolish the four it has or to get another 10-have decided that this Government has been so pre-eminently successful in the management of the Australian economy that it has not got the guts, the determination, the wit or the wisdom to address a single question on the economy. So I say to the honourable member that a government does not conduct economic policy in terms of saying: `Let us look at one element'. What we have done is to follow the import parity pricing policy that was pursued, with good reason, by the previous Government. When we were elected in March 1983, were we or others to foresee the gyrations that took place in the international prices for oil? We have responsibly sought to adjust the import pricing policy in a way which, as far as possible in the adjustment of those prices, is revenue neutral. If there have been decisions to raise revenue they have been taken separately from our policy in regard to oil pricing. In doing that, we have therefore ensured that the basic tenet and philosophy of the IPP policy of our predecessors will be adhered to. As I have had cause to say before, in the outcome the price of petrol in this country is still amongst the lowest anywhere in the world. Ms JAKOBSEN —I direct my question to the Minister for Housing and Construction. What impact will Federal funding have on meeting the demand for public housing this financial year? Mr WEST —I thank the honourable member for Cowan for her question. This is a most timely question as the Opposition and the Opposition spokesman on housing seem to have lost interest in the issue entirely. Indeed, the Opposition spokesman on housing seems to have sunk back into his usual torpor on this particularly important public issue. I am happy to report to the House that, as I said last Friday, this Hawke Labor Government treats housing as a high priority issue and, of course, we treat public housing as a particularly high priority issue. This Government has a real concern for the needs of the poorest in our community and for the needs of lower income earners. I point out to the House that at least 75 per cent of allocations by State governments are to recipients of social security pensions or benefits. In 1986-87 this Government will direct $694m by way of grants to the States and furthermore it will allow the States, under their State Government borrowing programs, to nominate 60 per cent of their funds, or 100 per cent in the case of Western Australia and South Australia, at the concessional interest rate of 4 1/2 per cent as long as those funds are directed to the provision of public housing. I am very pleased to report to the House that it is my understanding that all States, with the exception of Tasmania, will nominate to the full extent of their entitlement. This will mean that another $582m can be added to the Federal effort of $694m by way of grants. That is 130 per cent more than the level of funds which was provided under the former Government in 1982-83. When one adds the matching State grants to that figure, all up a record figure will be directed to public housing by the Federal Government and by State governments. So ours is a really great effort in public housing. Our policy will allow the States to add to the national rental stock some 18,000 extra units this financial year. This compares with only 8,700 units which were added to the national rental stock in 1982-83, which was the last year in office of the former Government. We will also be able, through the States, to direct over 14,000 subsidised loans to low income earners who wish to acquire their own homes this financial year. Some 22,000 new commencements will be recorded this year as a result of our public housing effort. That is the highest level of new commencements we have ever seen from public housing funding. All this adds up to a very strong public housing effort. I believe that it is a measure of the Hawke Labor Government's abiding concern for the families and single people of this nation who are in need of public housing. Dr BLEWETT —I add to an answer I gave yesterday and honour my promise to the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) to provide the information as soon as I could. The pamphlet advocating orgasm, masturbation and the use of marihuana and alcohol to relieve period pain, which the honourable member referred to, was, as far as can be determined, originally published in 1978 when the Commonwealth Government had responsibility for the direct funding and operational oversight of community health centres. This explains the reference to funding by the Commonwealth contained in the pamphlet. I am, of course, not suggesting that the Fraser Government approved the pamphlet. Indeed, in a review in 1980-81 the Commonwealth Department of Health objected to the reference to marihuana and to other points made in the pamphlet. The pamphlet was redrafted as a result. Since 1981 direct funding and responsibility for health centres have been transferred to State governments. The redrafted version of the pamphlet makes no mention of marihuana. It says of alcohol that `a small amount taken when period pain is present helps some women'. It says of orgasm that it `relieves pelvic congestion' but it leaves it up to contemporary readers to decide how best that can be accomplished. The pamphlet was designed for women of all ages who experience period pain. The fact that copies of the original version were distributed to year 10 students at one school recently was a mistake. I am informed that the school has since destroyed all remaining copies. I also understand that the women's health centres have advised that the original version of the pamphlet should not be used and that copies should be destroyed. Insofar as the honourable member sought to offer criticism of the Commonwealth-State national campaign against drug abuse, I simply point out that all governments in this country are mounting a concerted effort to highlight to people of all ages, but particularly young people, the dangers of drug abuse. Madam SPEAKER —I present the report of the Auditor-General, dated 22 September 1986, upon an efficiency audit of the Commonwealth Schools Commission-administration of capital grants to non-government schools. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the Report of the Auditor-General, dated 22 September 1986, upon an efficiency audit of the Commonwealth Schools Commission: administration of capital grants to non-government schools, and (2) That the report be printed. Madam SPEAKER —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Department of the House of Representatives for the year 1985-86. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to sub-section 63h (3) of the Audit Act 1901, I present the first annual report of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation for 1985-86, together with the Auditor-General's report. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 49 of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act 1977, I present the annual report of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation for 1985-86, together with the Auditor-General's report. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —Pursuant to sub-section 53 (3) of the Overseas Telecommunications Act 1946, I present the annual report of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) for 1985-86, together with the Auditor-General's report. 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 Beale,Dr Blewett,Mr Blunt,Mr Cadman,Mr Carlton,Mr Conquest,Mr Cowan,Mrs Darling,Mr Drummond,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Tim Fischer,Mr Hawker,Mr Howard,Mr Kent,Mr Milton,Mr O'Neil,Mr Porter,Mr Reith,Mr Ian Robinson,Mr Shack,Mr Slipper,Dr Watson and Mr Wright. 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. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hollis,Mr Kent,Mr Milton and Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce divisions in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Hawker and Mr Reith. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and the future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: Graduated family allowances are of important assistance to families with more than one child. All family allowances, whether for one, two, three, or more children, have not kept pace with inflation. There are suggestions that all family allowances should be paid at the one flat rate. This would severely disadvantage families with more than one child. There are also suggestions that the dependent spouse rebate be reduced or removed. This would represent another blow to the family unit. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should: ask the Federal Government to increase the value of existing family allowance payments, and reject any moves to change the payments to a flat rate or to tamper with the spouse rebate; And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker,Mr Kent and Mr O'Neil. 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 humble 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. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that- 1. A cessation of the testing of nuclear weapons would break the cycle of research, development and deployment of nuclear weapons and prevent the acquisition of new and ever more lethal weapons of mass destruction. It would thus be a major and significant step towards ending the arms race and beginning the disarmament process; and 2. The Soviet Union has extended its unilateral moratorium on nuclear weapons testing until August 6 this year and has again invited the United States to cease its nuclear testing program. Your petitioners therefore urge the Australian Government to put the strongest pressure on the United States Government to join the Soviet Union's nuclear test ban. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Jenkins,Mr Kent and Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows- That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent,Mr Milton and Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth 1. That 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 in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The Fringe Benefits Tax will cause hardship to business throughout Australia, especially in the already severely depressed rural sector and in the motor vehicle industry. The Fringe Benefits Tax will be a disincentive to employment and worse, will result in additional unemployment. The economy of this country would best be served by policies that lightened the tax burden, not increased it, that encouraged enterprise, not stifled it, and stimulated growth, development and jobs, not prevented it. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will repeal this legislation, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Shack. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that the Bill of Rights is a dangerous piece of legislation which gives us no new legally enforceable rights that the Bill of Rights leaves out vital rights such as the right not to belong to a trade union, the right to own private property, the right to a private education that the Bill of Rights gives dangerous new powers to a Federal Government Commission to investigate in private, without legal representation and with criminal penalties for refusing to co-operate that the Bill of Rights deals with our rights; therefore we, the people, should say whether we want it by a referendum. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will oppose the Bill of Rights, support Liberal amendments to improve it in case it is passed, and pledge to repeal it should it become law. by Mr Ewen Cameron and Mr Hawker. 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 Messrs Hempel and Etheredge in Western Australia. We are concerned that because judicial protection of these basic rights has been excluded from the Act, refugees, migrants, Australian overseas travellers, and visitors are at risk when they have been to (or come from) countries where the norms and practices of human rights and civil liberties are below traditionally accepted Australian standards. We the undersigned petitioners, therefore urge the Government to re-examine the Extradition (Foreign States) Act (as amended in 1985), and amend the current Act so that the rights of the accused are once again judicially protected in Australia. In addition, we urge the government to refrain from entering into any further extradition treaties or proceedings under the current Act until the process of re-examination and amendment of the Act has occurred. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Campbell and Mr Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and 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 Mr Carlton and Dr Harry Edwards. 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 Party Pricing policy. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker and Mr Reith. 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 Hollis and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) that the phasing down and eventual closure of the services of the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Centre at Glen Waverley will be detrimental to the rehabilitation of disabled Australian citizens; (2) that the Glen Waverley Rehabilitation Centre is `purpose' built and its loss would deprive disabled Australian citizens of a unique multi-million dollar facility; (3) that the essential accommodation for disabled Australian citizens will no longer be available. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: (1) that the phasing down of the services of the Glen Waverley Rehabilitation Centre be reversed immediately; (2) that the one hundred and four bed residential facility be fully utilised immediately; (3) that sufficient funding is provided by the Commonwealth Department of Community Services to operate the Centre at full capacity. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our nation and your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Aldred. 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 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 Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, plead that Parliament will legislate, or act in accordance with the present legislation, to replace the current members of the Film Censorship Board who have admitted to Senator Harradine on 12th December 1984, as reported in the Senate Select Committee on Video Material, (see attached extracts), that they are not applying either the blasphemy or obscenity tests as required under the provisions of the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations, and that these persons be replaced by persons who will apply these and the other related tests 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 Donald Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the failure of the Government to honour its election promises to pensioners. In particular those promises relate to the following commitments: 1. That within three years of its election to office, a Hawke Labor Government would raise the level of the standard pension to 25% of Average Weekly Earnings; 2. That the lag time between the announcement of the Consumer Price Index figures and the subsequent adjustment of pensions would be reduced to one month, and 3. That the disproportionate tax burden borne by low income earners would be lifted. None of these promises has been honoured to date. Your petitioners are extremely angry at the failure of the Government to live up to its commitments and as in duty bound will ever pray that these serious omissions will be given the attention they deserve. by Mr Cowan. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the hardship caused by present provisions of the Assets Test to those people who own small holdings of land on which their home is erected. Your petitioners therefore request that the provisions of the Assets Test be modified by an increase in the threshold amount which applicants for pensions are allowed to own before the Assets Test renders them ineligible for a pension. by Mr Cowan. 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. 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 House. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Bill of Rights is a dangerous piece of legislation which gives us no new legally enforceable rights; That the Bill of Rights leaves out vital rights such as the right not to belong to a trade union, the right to own private property, the right to a private education. That the Bill of Rights gives dangerous new powers to a Federal Government Commission to investigate in private, without legal representation and with criminal penalties for refusing to co-operate; That the Bill of Rights deals with our rights; therefore we, the people, should say whether we want it by a referendum. Your petitioners humbly pray that you repeal the Bill of Rights legislation and not restrict the individual freedoms of Australians and its present justice system, nor in any underhand way centralise power in our three tier system of Government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's Bill of Rights seeks to make changes in the constitutional balance in Australia by intruding into the affairs of individuals and of State and Local Governments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal the Bill of Rights legislation and not restrict the individual freedoms of Australians and its present justice system, nor in any underhand way centralise power in our three tier system of Government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of 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 impact on pensioners. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of 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 Hellensberg 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 be kept operational and fully staffed. by Mr Hollis. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows that: in this International Year of Peace, 1986, the world needs a nuclear test moratorium by the united States, the Soviet Union, France and other nuclear-testing powers that such a moratorium would create a favourable climate and basis for the negotiation of a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty that such a Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty would be the first vital step to nuclear disarmament impede the development of new nuclear weapons decrease the reliance upon an unstable nuclear strategy inhibit the spread of nuclear weapons. Your petitioners therefore ask that the Australian Government be urged to: 1. Use its influence with the United States Government to encourage it to join the moratorium on nuclear testing begun by the Soviet Union on 6 August 1985. 2. Use its influence in all forums to encourage other nuclear nations to join the Nuclear Test Moratorium. 3. Use its influence in all forums to encourage on nuclear nations to demand the establishment of a Nuclear Test Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. by Mr Jenkins. 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. 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. An your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia of Albanian back-ground respectfully showeth: We most strongly oppose the use of the `Special Broadcasting Service' and the taxpayers funds for nationalist political purposes. We are deeply concerned that the existing Albanian program on radio 3EA Melbourne is not meeting the needs of the community. It is being used against it's 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 of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that we, the people of Victoria would like to remind you of your moral duty in regard to your decision to sell uranium to France, against ALP policy. The French are still nuclear testing in the South Pacific, despite world wide protests. We therefore call on you to reverse the decision to sell uranium to France. by Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That the Capital Gains tax penalises small business, discourages long-term investment, hinders capital formation and wealth creation, has contributed to Australia's economic crisis and contains many anomalies. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately repeal the Income Tax Assessment Amendment (Capital Gains) Act 1986. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Reith. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we the undersigned are totally opposed to the Government's policy to tax pony club income. Your petitioners urge the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to allow tax exempt status for pony clubs. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Reith. To the Honourable 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. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: There is an urgent need to up-grade and extend the facilities at the Northern Rivers College of Advanced Education Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Provide the necessary capital funding for the Northern Rivers CAE to ensure North Coast students have access to a tertiary institution capable of providing them with the skills they will need to meet the challenges of the future. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: 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 the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The Petition of certain residents of the State of Western Australia draws to the attention of the House that the Government has increased wholesale sales tax another 10% under the 1986-87 Budget, resulting in a 20% Sales Tax on wine. This tax was introduced at a time of a record trade imbalance between our wine imports and exports and will further exacerbate that problem. Your petitioners therefore ask that the Government cancels the 20% Sales Tax before it causes a further contraction in our wine industry, with consequential loss of exports, and employment in the wine and tourism and retailing industries which are currently operating in Western Australia. by Mr Drummond. 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 businesses expenses incurred in earning or producing assessable income should be allowable deductions. that the proposed Capital Gains Tax is an unwarranted burden on the rural sector, which will severely affect its long-term viability. that the delay by the Government in introducing the legislation into Parliament is causing confusion and hindering farmers in the organisation of their affairs. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government introduces the Capital Gains Tax legislation without delay and that the Australian Democrats join with the Opposition to defeat the proposed legislation. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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 humble pray: That the Government make home loan interest rates tax deductible therefore alleviating the present crippling burden of current high interest rates on home owners and home buyers. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: that the actions of trade unions have gone beyond their traditional goals of protecting workers conditions and rates of pay and have reached the point where they are seriously affecting the economic health of the nation and the people. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That all Governments throughout Australia acknowledge and protect the Right to Work on behalf of all Australians. 2. That the total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamental requirement of a workable, balanced Federal system of government. 3. That all necessary steps be taken to protect the citizens of Australia from any inducement, compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade union. 4. That there should be no preference in employment for people who are members of trade unions. 5. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 6. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher respectfully showeth that: The legislation to tax fringe benefits is iniquitous, inequitable and unfair; It will severely disadvantage both employees and employers; Employees will clearly lose many fringe benefits as a direct result of the additional heavy taxation burden being imposed upon employers; Employers will be forced to pay even higher levels of taxation to provide fringe benefits for employees. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Immediately abandon the Fringe Benefits Tax. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce divisions in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag remain sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Queensland respectfully showeth: Whereas the present Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has purported to present the title deeds to Ayers Rock in Central Australia, in reality the joint property of the people of the Commonwealth to an Aboriginal Land Council on 26 October 1985. Whereas opinion polls and statements of representative groups, Members of Parliament and respected individuals show clearly that the Commonwealth Government had no mandate from the citizens of the Commonwealth to act in such a disgraceful manner. Whereas the present Government claims to be totally opposed to apartheid (separate development) in South Africa but purported to hand over Ayers Rock to an Aboriginal Council in support of a policy of apartheid (separate development) which has been shown to be detrimental to the Aboriginal people of Australia. Whereas it is pursuing this policy making it a crime for most white and many Aboriginals to enter, without permit, large areas of the Commonwealth designated apartheid (i.e., set aside for separate development), contrary to our democratic traditions and experience of freedom of movement for citizens of all racial origins within Australia. Whereas Australian citizens have no present means available to them to prevent this violation of their natural rights to unfettered common ownership of, and access to, a treasured natural asset. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Seek means available for the protection of the people's interests to reverse this outrage and preserve the democratic traditions of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The 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 not action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Watson. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The urgent need in Australia for an industrial relations system which makes all parties equal before the law and provides incentives for enterprise-based productivity gains. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.04) —Yesterday the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown), pursued a matter of public importance dealing with restrictive work practices. Because the Opposition regards reform of our archaic, outdated, unworkable and increasingly backward-looking industrial relations system as about the most important challenge in the whole economic area, we again bring forward for discussion as a matter of urgency the reform of Australia's industrial relations system. Yesterday my colleague the Deputy Leader reminded the Parliament essentially of the humbug and the death-bed repentance of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on the subject of restrictive work practices. All of us do well to remind ourselves, every time we think of the Australian economy, of two things about the principal economic helmsmen of Australia at present. We ought to remind ourselves that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) is the man who destroyed our AAA credit rating, and we ought to remind ourselves that the man who did more than any other living Australian to entrench the archaic restrictive work practices that he now rails against was none other than the present Prime Minister when he led the Australian Council of Trade Unions. If ever a man behaved as though Australia were an economic island, it did not matter what the rest of the world thought and it did not matter how uncompetitive the Australian economy became, it was R. J. L. Hawke in the days when he led the ACTU. The primary producers and the exporters of Australia often watched in anguish as their produce rotted on the wharves of this country, until the Leader of the ACTU deigned that it was politically and industrially satisfactory to intervene. That produce would rot on the wharves of this nation until he saw it as being in his self-interest to intervene to settle those disputes. Yesterday we were reminded of what a humbug the Prime Minister is on the subject of work practices. Does anybody in this House really believe that we would be having a conference on restrictive work practices tomorrow, attended by the Prime Minister, if it had not been for the Robe River dispute? Whatever people's views may be about the precise methodology of Robe River, the fact nonetheless remains that the so-called troglodytes, lunatics, economic destroyers and traitors are the very people who caused and helped to cause this death-bed repentance of the Prime Minister on the subject of restrictive work practices. I think we all ought to remember that. The most remarkable thing about this whole debate is the way in which the agenda has moved in favour of policies advocated by the Opposition over the last couple of years. I can remember saying in September 1983, when I was Deputy Leader of the Opposition, at the National Press Club, in my reply to the Budget, that I believe that it was about time Mr Justice Higgins was turned on his head. Mr Justice Higgins, be it remembered, was the person who wrote the famous Harvester judgment which entrenched the principle of comparative wage justice in the Australian industrial relations experience. I was arguing at that time for a more flexible industrial relations system, one that took greater account of capacity to pay, one that recognised the value of enterprise-based agreements, and one that essentially rejected the notion that unions are entitled to a privileged position above the law. Our ideas then-and increasingly-were rejected by the Government as being irrelevant. The high water mark of that rejection, of course, was reached just over 12 months ago when, to the sound of cymbals and drums, the accord mark 2 was negotiated. I well remember the renegotiation of that accord, because we were told by everybody, from the Prime Minister down, that it was the greatest economic achievement since Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations, that it was the most brilliant economic achievement that anybody had ever achieved. We heard remarks such as this by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), who is at the table: Ratification of the accord would see a consolidation and a strengthening of existing progress that would firmly entrench the accord as the only viable long term approach to economic and social policy in Australia. That is what he said a little over 12 months ago. Again, on 15 October 1985, he stated: The Australian people must realise that because the accord is there- and listen to these pearls of economic and industrial wisdom of 15 October 1985- we have the capacity to adjust to that devaluation- the Minister was talking about the devaluation of 1985- without suffering a recession of the economy and a loss of economic and employment growth. We all know what has happened. We have had three more debilitating devaluations since that statement was made. The economy has technically gone into recession and we are now witnessing a rise in unemployment and a loss of international competitiveness. So much for the achievement of accord mark 2. Principally, I want to talk about what we believe should be the real alternative in industrial relations in Australia, and we ought in the process remind ourselves of the myths that have surrounded the accord. If ever an economic theory was shrouded in myth and legend, it is the prices and incomes accord. The Government keeps telling us that unit labour costs have fallen and that we have become more competitive. However, the chart that I hold tells otherwise. It shows that our unit labour costs, compared with those of our major trading partners, have become steadily worse since March 1983. However, the Prime Minister keeps tramping the country with his cohorts saying that there has been a 7 per cent fall in real wages over the past 3 1/2 years. The Prime Minister does not tell us, of course, that 5 per cent of that 7 per cent fall occurred in 1983-84, and was due to the beneficial effects of the Fraser Government's wages pause, a pause that the Prime Minister tried to stop. He conspired with the then President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions to bring down the former leader of the Labor Party and to delay its implementation. He does not tell us anything of that. Instead, the Prime Minister runs around the country telling us how industrial disputation has lessened under the accord. He tells us all of that but he does not tell us that other countries that have entirely different industrial relations systems have also enjoyed a more beneficial industrial relations climate over the past 3 1/2 years. He does not tell us that industrial disputes in that period have declined 60 per cent in the United States, 50 per cent in France, 80 per cent in Italy, 60 per cent in Canada and 80 per cent in West Germany. He would have us believe that the only country where there has been any decline in industrial disputes over the past 3 1/2 years is Australia, and that all of it is due to his brilliance and that of the prices and incomes accord. The reality is that without the accord there would have been an equivalent fall in the number of industrial disputes in this country, and that it has been more a consequence of the high levels of unemployment and the economic difficulties of the western industrialised world that there has been such a fall during the relevant period. In the wake of the failure of the accord we have various flavours of the month, and the great flavour of the month now is Sweden. The Opposition welcomes that because a Labor government will always embrace Sweden as an example. Sweden is the corporate state par excellence. It has a taxation level which is 51 per cent of gross domestic product and an expenditure level that is 64 per cent of GDP. I can only say that I hope that Sweden is the flavour of every month from now until the end of the year. We shall embrace the analogy of Sweden. Our real need is to have a more flexible approach to industrial relations that asserts the fundamental principle that no segment of the Australian community should be above the law. When we criticise trade union power, we do not criticise the existence of unions. We do not argue with the legitimate industrial aspirations of the Australian trade union movement. We have no quarrel with them. The unions are part of the Australian community. However, we assert most vigorously that no segment of the Australian community should be above the law. For that reason, we reject the Minister's declared intention-I will be interested if he denies it-to introduce the reforms recommended by the Hancock Committee of Review of the Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems. The implementation of those recommendations would further entrench the privileged position of the trade union leaders. It would establish the view that trade union leaders are an elite, above and beyond the laws of this country. The Minister still wants to abolish the secondary boycott provisions of the Trade Practices Act. If that assertion of mine is wrong, I challenge him to deny that it is still Government policy to abolish section 45D of the Trade Practices Act-the section which I inserted, as Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs in a previous Government, and the section which made Mudginberri the triumph for individual entrepreneurial struggle against union might that it undoubtedly was and will go down in the folklore of this country as having been. But above that, we also need an approach to industrial relations at an enterprise level that goes over and beyond the union structure. We need, as Charlie Fitzgibbon acknowledged in his very worthwhile paper to the Economic Planning Advisory Council, more Lincoln Electrics. The Minister may not like Lincoln Electrics Company (Aust.) Pty Ltd, and Charlie may not like it; but we need a few more of those. We also need to recognise that in order to lift the productivity of this country, we need a greater element of co-operation and agreement between employers and employees. But we do not need that at a bureaucratic trade union level. We do not need it as the accord states we do or as the Government believes we do. We shall not achieve it by getting the ACTU and the employer organisations together. We shall achieve it increasingly through providing incentives through the tax system and through encouraging profit sharing arrangements and employee share ownership arrangements. We need to encourage a greater degree of co-operation at an enterprise, a work place and a shop floor level. That is why the Opposition's alternative industrial relations policy says a number of things about small business, because it is in the small business area that a start can really be made. Small businesses, by their very nature, are not highly unionised, and that gives a flexibility at the work place level that is absent in a larger plant. Small businesses, by their very nature, encourage greater exchange and communication between the employer and his employees. For that reason, we say that every firm in Australia that employs fewer than 50 people should be free to make its own bargains, subject only to the payment of an hourly minimum rate of remuneration. That is the foundation of the new flexibility that we can breathe into the Australian industrial relations system, because we are talking about approximately 40 to 45 per cent of the total private sector work force of this country. Over a period of three years in our first term of office, if we can deregulate and free up all the firms in Australia that employ fewer than 50 people, we will have brought about an industrial relations revolution which will literally transform the economic outlook of the entire community. That is why that is an underpinning of our alternative industrial relations policy. I conclude by saying to the Minister and to the Government that we welcome this debate on industrial relations, we are greatly encouraged that Sweden is the flavour of the month, and we are more convinced than ever that the path to real reform lies down the deregulatory route that we have so vigorously argued over the last 3 1/2 years. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(3.19) —The Government, likewise, welcomes this debate, initiated by the Opposition, because we believe the Opposition is on incredibly weak ground when it comes to industrial relations. Its record in government was abysmal. Its record when in opposition in trying to formulate an effective policy is just as bad, and its policy now that it has one, which was very briefly alluded to by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), is even worse. At the outset let me nail the great lie which is being perpetrated by the Opposition in almost every speech that is made by its leadership. The Opposition would have the Australian people believe that the fact that, after three years of extremely strong economic and employment growth, this country has gone into a period of lower growth in the economy, lesser growth in employment and some rise in unemployment, is due to some defect in the industrial relations system. We totally reject that great lie which continually comes from the Opposition. There is simply no truth in it whatsoever. The fact is that we have had an industrial relations system operating over the last three years which has coincided with record growth of the economy, record growth in employment and, of course, a tremendous reduction in the level of industrial disputes. There has been an enormous improvement in the industrial relations environment in this country since this Government came to office. We now face a situation in which economic prospects are not as bright as they were over the previous three years not because there has been any sudden defect exposed in the industrial relations system or because our wages policy has gone awry, but because we as a nation have faced the fact that we have been beset by a tremendous fall in our export prices, particularly for our commodities. Given the fact that commodities are the overwhelming proportion of our exports, that has given us a balance of payments problem which necessarily involves a very considerable adjustment in the Australian economy. Part of that adjustment is lesser growth of the economy, lesser growth of employment and some period of rising unemployment. That is a process we have to go through not because of any fault in the industrial relations system, not because of any failure of the Government, not because of any failure of the accord or the wages policy, not because the trade unions have gone berserk or the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has been totally irresponsible, but simply because something has been imposed upon this nation by the rest of the world to which we as a nation must adjust. That is the basic reality which must be understood by all Australians. Certainly, any fair minded person would acknowledge that that is the situation. It is just unbelievable that the Opposition continues to try to perpetrate the myth that our economic situation is the result of some defect in the industrial relations system and that if only we threw away the present industrial relations system and grabbed the one from the United States of America or somewhere else we would suddenly have a new nirvana with a rapidly growing output in employment and higher standards of living. It is an absolute nonsense to perpetrate that kind of belief in the Australian electorate. I am sure that the electorate is far too intelligent to swallow that great lie which continually comes from the Opposition. The Opposition's industrial relations policy is now, as it was when those opposite were in government, in a terrible mess. On the other hand, as I have said, the Government has been able to point to tremendous achievements. Let me very quickly remind the House again of those achievements. In the last three years we have had economic growth in the region of 5 per cent per year compared with an average of 2 per cent achieved by the Fraser Government. We have had growth in employment of 650,000, the fastest rate of job growth in the Western world in the past two years. Industrial disputes have been reduced to less than half of the average level under the Fraser Government. We have seen real wages fall by 5 per cent in a period of strong economic growth which, of course, contrasts totally with what has happened in previous periods of strong economic growth. There has been a fall of 7 per cent in real unit labour costs, something that no other country in the Western world has achieved in that period. We have also seen a return to more normal levels of profitability. These are results which the Fraser Government never looked like achieving at any time. Those opposite are massively envious of the fact that such results have been achieved by a Labor government through an accord operating with the trade union movement, something which they could never have achieved. Let me make the point that real wages have fallen by 5 per cent. Over the same period in the United States real wages declined by about half a per cent but in West Germany growth was near 4 per cent, in Japan it was just under 6 per cent and in the United Kingdom-this is a very relevant comparison for us to make because of the similarity of the trade union structure in that country-there has been growth despite a 13 per cent unemployment level. We have seen growth in real wages of 10.5 per cent over the past three years in that country. That is one of the reasons it still has 13 per cent unemployment, and this is despite the strong anti-union stance of the Thatcher Government and an array of anti-union legislation which has been brought in to break the unions. It still resulted in 10.5 per cent real wage growth over the past three years. The Leader of the Opposition made some international comparisons regarding industrial disputes. Over the past three years, the average time lost in industrial disputes in Australia has fallen by 75 per cent which compares to a growth of 22 per cent in the United Kingdom. So with all the array of anti-union legislation that the Thatcher Government has armed itself with and 13 per cent unemployment, industrial disputation still increased by 22 per cent. If we look at international comparisons we should realise that in the United Kingdom the comparison-which is most appropriate to us-is a very invidious one. I say to those who say that the United Kingdom has a better system that Australia fares infinitely better with a massive reduction in industrial disputation. My Department has done some research which shows that of nine Western countries Australia has recorded the largest fall in time lost in industrial disputes. Briefly I compare that enormously good record with that achieved by the Fraser Government. As I mentioned, it had growth in the economy of 2 per cent. It had a virtual fiasco rather than a wages policy. It vacillated between support for full indexation which did not last very long-about three months-partial indexation, no indexation, collective bargaining, and a wage freeze. Its crowning achievement was the disastrous metal trades adjustment in 1981-82 where average earnings rose by almost 17 per cent. That, of course, led us to an increase in real unit labour costs of 16.5 per cent in 1982, which was 10 per cent higher than that of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. It was 10 per cent higher than that of our major trading partners. It was an enormous blow-out. The Leader of the Opposition in the course of his speech had the hide to say that there has been some slight excess in the rate of increase in wages in Australia over that achieved by our trading partners over the past three years. In fact, in 1982 when the Leader of the Opposition was Treasurer we had a massive blow-out which infinitely damaged our competitive position compared to our trading partners. If we look at what has happened in the wages area we will see that over the past three years award rates have increased by 5.1 per cent under this Government compared to an average of 10.9 per cent under the Fraser Government. Average weekly earnings have increased by 7.1 per cent compared to 11.6 per cent average under the Fraser Government. There has been a tremendous decline in real unit labour costs as I have mentioned. In relation to industrial disputes, the average working days lost under the Fraser Government was three million days per annum compared to an average of 1.3 million under this Government-less than half. Time lost peaked at a disastrous 44.7 million days in the year ending May 1980 under the Fraser Government compared to 1.4 million days in the year ending May this year. On any comparison of the record of industrial relations of this Government and the record of the previous Government, one can only be staggered at the difference-our performance has been infinitely better. The Opposition has been madly scrabbling around trying to gather some form of coherent wages and industrial relations policy. We have seen it go through all sorts of convolutions trying to achieve that policy. It came up with some sort of patched up compromise in 1984 which it abandoned after a series of wrangles where it publicly clashed with what the policy ought to be. Even the honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr), who was Chairman of the Opposition's industrial relations committee at the end of 1985, resigned because he said that the opting out proposal that it was looking at was constitutionally unobtainable, that it would act as a pacesetter for awards and that it would produce a worse wage outcome for the economy, which of course it would. Even when its new policy was completed it showed a total lack of confidence in it and concern at the likely public reaction to it, by producing a hit list of businessmen-which I revealed in this House-who had to be neutralised along with journalists before the policy could be released. When we look at this pathetic policy which the Leader of the Opposition says will open up a new era and provide a revolution in industrial relations we see how laughable it is. Economically it is utterly irresponsible because it has no wages policy in it at all. The Opposition simply says that it will encourage everyone to have voluntary agreements. If it is going to encourage voluntary agreements and if it is going to undertake the kind of action it wants in respect of wages and conditions, in those areas where there is strong bargaining power we will see parties reach agreements which will involve substantial increases in wages and conditions of employment. There then will be enormous pressure for those conditions to flow on. That has been the basic element of the Australian economy, which has so marked industrial relations in the past couple of decades, and which the accord directly addressed. The accord directly addressed that element by saying that we have to contain that kind of thing, and we have contained it in a way which has meant that we have been tremendously successful in redressing many of the fundamental imbalances in this economy. But the Opposition has also produced a policy in relation to voluntary agreements which is constitutionally unworkable. Do not tell me that it is not because even Brent Davis of the Australian Chamber of Commerce agreed in an article in Australian Business that it is constitutionally unworkable. He is from the far New Right and if he says it is unworkable, the Opposition has real problems. It is unconstitutional because to provide that parties can establish their own voluntary agreements to set their own wages and conditions of employment is not possible under the conciliation and arbitration power because that power is founded on the existence of an industrial dispute extending beyond one State. Therefore employers and employees can only agree to conciliation and arbitration for dispute settlement and Parliament can legislate only to provide for agreements prescribing dispute settling procedures by conciliation and arbitration. A voluntary agreement could not simply prescribe wages and conditions of employment as proposed in the Opposition's policy. The Opposition has also proposed that agreements will provide for relevant award rates of pay to apply to avoid the potential for sweated workshops. This simply cannot be guaranteed as Commonwealth legislation cannot require particular provisions to be included in agreements. Therefore, voluntary agreements would be capable of overriding all minimum standards prescribed in Federal or State awards and State legislation. One cannot say that there is this bottom line of an award rate because one simply cannot prescribe that. There is no constitutional power to do that. The Liberals also propose that part of an employment relationship be award covered and the other part be agreement related. Under the conciliation and arbitration power this is extremely doubtful as it is necessary to incorporate all industrial matters involved in the employment relationship into a single instrument. The Opposition also proposes to amend the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to prohibit the Commission having regard to the provisions of voluntary agreements. Again this is highly doubtful as Parliament cannot direct the Commission in its dispute settling role. There are a number of other reasons why this policy is uncon- stitutional. The Opposition, as part of its aim of achieving government, has paraded as its No. 1 plank a policy based on the myth that industrial relations are the basic problem in the country, but the No. 1 element of that No. 1 plank is totally unconstitutional. The Opposition simply cannot bring it into effect. The Opposition has no power to bring it into effect, unless it is going to try to use some other constitutional arrangements, which will break new ground for the Opposition and will also mean incomplete coverage and certainly will not bring about the kind of industrial relations revolution which it says it will achieve with this policy. We are seeing extreme naivete from the Opposition in industrial relations. It comes through in almost everything it says. The fact that it comes up with a policy that is constitutionally invalid demonstrates more than anything else the sheer naivete and lack of knowledge about industrial relations of this Opposition and its unfitness to be the government of this country. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(3.35) —All of the arm waving, shouting and the red-faced blustering of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) will not deny or contribute to the Australian people denying that there are some very simple and elementary issues involved here which are really virtually beyond argument. All of the arm waving and all of the tedious recital of statistics will not change these basic facts. The first fact is that Australia economically is going down the drain. The second fact is that one of the reasons, but not the only reason, why Australia is economically going down the drain, is our archaic, rigid and inflexible industrial relations system. The third fact is that if we get in place some enterprise and work place arrangements between employers and employees so that people can have a direct say in the price of their labour and the conditions of employment they work under, we will probably do more than we can by any other single step to get back some productivity, profitability into business and employment generation into this country. They are simple facts and simple propositions and all of this tedious recital of statistics and arm waving will not change those basic facts. But let me say at the outset that even on the facts the Minister is wrong. Even on the economic statistics that he likes to cite he is wrong. Let us just look at them. He said in the first place that there has been a lot of growth in the Australian economy. We know all about growth-there has been negative growth in the Australian economy for the last three quarters. We are technically in recession. He said there has been growth in employment. Let us look at what the news was today. Honourable members may not yet have received this intelligence, but some job vacancy figures came out today. We do not have to go back beyond this morning to get these figures. This morning we discovered that job vacancies are down-that they declined between May and August and that they declined by 7.3 per cent over the 12 months period to August 1986. Not only are those figures correct but also we find that they compare and are quite consistent with the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd series of job advertisements which have shown a 9 per cent decline over the year to August. In the earlier stages of this Government there may have been increases in employment-we know the reasons for that-but we now know also that as a result of the economic policies of this Government, employment is shrinking and unemployment is rising to the level where it is now 8.3 per cent. The Minister says further that we have had a fall in labour costs. It has been made abundantly clear that this is one of the greatest myths perpetrated by the Government in terms of the great acceptance and great success of the prices and incomes accord. Let me remind the Minister that if he looks at the basic facts he will find that we have not done well compared with those countries we trade with when we look at labour costs over recent times. The Minister has said that recent wage restraint in Australia has been as good as that in most Western economies. The reality of the situation is that wage growth in Australia has consistently outstripped that of our major Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development trading partners during the period of the Hawke Government and during the period of the accord. In fact, when one looks at the comparison between the countries we like to compare ourselves with-the countries we trade with-we have not done well at all on labour costs. Indeed, the Budget delivered on only 19 August made it abundantly clear that we are now in for a continuation of what we have had in this country-that is, there will be nominal wage increases over the coming year of some 6 per cent; indeed, in excess of 6 per cent. How does that compare with the overseas countries with which we trade and with which we should be making the comparison? We find that the average for the OECD trading partners will be 4 1/2 per cent; not 6 per cent. In the United States of America it will be 2 1/2 per cent and in Japan it will be less than 2 1/2 per cent. We have a wages situation which is not putting us in a good trading position. It is a wages situation which, amongst other reasons, is continuing, to send this country into economic decline. The Minister stood up and said that it is utterly absurd to suggest that we need a new industrial relations and wage fixing system. I remind him that it is not only the Opposition that has drawn attention to the need for a new wage fixing system in this country but also most international observers who have looked at the Australian system have come to exactly the same conclusion. I remind him of what Moody's Investor Services Inc. said only a few weeks ago when it took away our AAA rating: Industrial and labor market rigidities are further expected to hamper the country's ongoing efforts to shift economic resources into areas of high foreign exchange earning capacity. By that statement Moody's-as have other international observers and many observers and commentators in this country-has drawn attention to the simple fact that if we continue to have a centralised, rigid and inflexible wage fixing system, we will continue to have resources directed into unproductive areas. That is the very essence and nature of a centralised system. The essence of our centralised arbitration system is simply this: The big organisations go off to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, they make out a case for a wage increase and, because the system is centralised, the wage increases and improvements in conditions flow into all industries-not only into those that can afford to pay and where there is a capacity to pay but also into industries where there is not that capacity to pay. We say that we will be doing a great deal to improve productivity and employment if we get away from this absurd system and try to do two things: Firstly, get wage increases fixed to the capacity to pay, so that industries which can afford to pay will pay; and, secondly, and far more importantly, get away from the centralised system so that we can get agreements between employers and employees on what their wages and conditions of employment should be. If we do that, we will be going a long way towards getting improvements in productivity. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has said that the Opposition has no wages policy. He does not seem to have read our industrial relations policy document, which took a long time to prepare and was prepared after a lot of consultation with people who know far more about industrial relations and wage fixing than the Minister obviously knows. He said that in the first place what we have proposed is unconstitutional. I do not know whether the Minister is holding himself out as a constitutional expert as well. I did not come down in the last shower. We got constitutional advice from top lawyers on our proposal We have absolute guarantees that the proposal is constitutional and quite valid. Before the Minister starts holding himself up as an expert on constitutional law, he should do something very positive about trying to reform our system and about preventing the present decay in employment and the rise in unemployment. He should do that before he starts lecturing us about constitutional principles and constitutional laws. The essential point about this debate is that we are now at the stage where accord mark 1 has been a colossal failure. Remember what the Government told us about accord mark 1? It told us that it had got inflation down to 5.1 per cent, believe it or not. It left out the subsequent results which have taken inflation to well over 8 per cent. So we do not see any more of that publication. Accord mark 2 was an absolute disaster and has imposed additional wage costs on this country which it clearly cannot afford, particularly through superannuation. We have seen a complete abrogation by the Government of its responsibility in the Arbitration Commission in the last national wage case and in superannuation matters. That, apparently, has been the end of accord mark 2. It is said that we are to have another accord, one that will get flexibility into our system. Let me make it perfectly plain that it is the Opposition and those who have supported the Opposition who have taken up the flagship of flexibility in our wage fixing system. It is we who have successfully advocated the reform of the system. It is we who have advocated-it is in our policy document in black and white-the need to get rid of restrictive work practices in our system. It is we who have advocated that there must be flexibility in awards. If others now follow us, good luck to them. But let the Australian people remember that it is the Opposition which drew attention to the shortcomings of our system and the decay in the Australian economy as a result. It was we who advocated the reform of this system which is so essential. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(3.45) —We have just seen the Torvill and Dean of industrial relations, the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, as they slip and slide and skid and skate around the industrial arena of this-- Mr Tuckey —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. We have had some rulings in this place about personal references. If the honourable member wishes to talk about members, he should use their proper names, as is properly done in this place. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The point of order is taken. I ask the honourable member to refer to members of this House by their correct titles. Mr HAND —I was reminded of Torvill and Dean when I heard honourable members opposite speaking in this debate, because they slipped and slid around the skating rink of industrial relations. Today we have another pathetic matter of public importance put before the House. The Opposition asks that all parties in industrial relations be equal before the law. Its industrial relations policy, as we all know, has failed. It was rejected by the employers. In fact, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown), was run out of one meeting when he met with employers because they were so disgusted with his performance. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has been quoted recently as saying `the times will suit me; the times of downturn in the economy will suit me'. We saw in Question Time today another pathetic performance by the Opposition. One only has to talk to National Party members in the corridors around this place to hear what they think about the performance of the Leader of the Opposition and Deputy Leader of the Opposition, because they are not producing. They have moved to a position of personal attack and mealy-mouthed proposals such as the one before us today. We now have the New Right, the people who advised the Opposition when it was in government-that is, the Stones and the Copemans of this world. These people have set about to sabotage the Australia economy. They have acted in a very unpatriotic way. The Government is negotiating overseas. The very people the Deputy Leader of the Opposition sat down with to work out the Opposition policy have set about to sabotage this economy by undermining the Government when its members go overseas to negotiate agreements. We saw that with the Peko-Wallsend Ltd dispute. That was quite a deliberate attempt to undermine this Government's endeavours to do better for Australia. I condemn those sorts of people. They are the sort of people that Opposition members are running with. No wonder they are thought so badly of when they talk to community groups. I guess the performance of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on 60 Minutes is an indication of what everybody in the community thinks of him. He was the only person present who managed to be booed by both sides of the hall. That is not a bad achievement, particularly as he had some input into choosing half the people who attended. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) spelt out in his comments what our industrial relations policy has achieved. He is correct. I refute the comments of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who seems to have terrible trouble telling the truth when he comes in here, or else he just cannot read facts. The facts are that this Government's industrial relations policy has proven to be very successful. We have the fastest rate of economic growth of any Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country. Mr Lloyd —Hang on; it has been negative for the last three quarters. Mr HAND —The honourable member should get the books out and read the facts. Industrial disputation is at its lowest level for 18 years. Profitability as a proportion of gross domestic product has risen from 11 per cent to over 15 1/2 per cent. These are all facts. There is no disputing them. Our industrial relations policy under the accord has worked. On the other hand, the Opposition's confrontationist policy proved to be a failure and will prove to be a failure again if it is ever implemented. God help us; I hope that never occurs. We have set about to sit down with people and work our way through the various problems with which we have been confronted. We have established the Economic Planning Advisory Council, at meetings of which economic conditions, prospects and policies are discussed. That has been a tremendous help to this Government and to the community generally. We have established the Advisory Committee on Prices and Incomes which monitors the implementation of our prices and incomes policies. That again is an opportunity for people from all sides to discuss the situation in the community. The Australian Manufacturing Council and its 11 industry councils provide advice on policies to strengthen the role of manufacturing industry-the very section of our community that honourable members opposite set about to destroy in their period in government. They thought that they could ride on the sheep's back and on minerals, but they failed. They were wrong. At the same time, they set about destroying the great manufacturing industries of this country. This Government, through its industrial relations policy, has set about resurrecting those industries and bringing them back. We have seen that happen with the car plan, the steel plan and the ship building plan, and a number of other proposals are in the pipeline. That is the only way we will get Australian men and women and young people coming out of the school system into the work force. There is no other way. The Opposition's confrontationist policy would not allow the manufacturing industry in this country to progress in the way our proposals will. The Trade Development Council advises on the development of exports and policies and is designed to increase Australia's share of world export markets. What did the previous Government do for export markets? All sections of the community have been able to get together with this Government to work out ways in which we can help our exports and, therefore, the country generally, I commend the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) for the role he has played and the fight that he has carried out overseas at the conferences he has attended. In recent days, he has had a great deal of success. It is a pity that honourable members opposite would not get on their feet and acknowledge his success. It seems that when this Government is successful the Opposition will not make any comments in this House which could be construed as praise for the Government. I am sure that the people whom the Opposition is supposed to represent, the farming community, are aware of the arguments that we have presented and the fights that have taken place for them in international forums in trying to get better prices for their products. Recently I visited Warrnambool in the Western District of Victoria. I do not know whether members of the Opposition ever visit that area. I have never had so many people come up to me-farmers, small businessmen and factory workers-and say: `What a good job you are doing. It is a pity that we do not have a Labor representative down here'. Mr McArthur —They never tell me that, Gerry. Mr HAND —The honourable member for Corangamite is not allowed to go past Camperdown; we all know that. It is generally recognised that the Government is on the right track. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has attended many meetings which he has been asked to leave. Members of the Government can sit down with the business community, discuss our industrial relations policies and work our way through them. However, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition does his block. Is it true that the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party is no longer allowed to attend such discussions because he is too abrasive and upsets too many people? I hear that he must be kept out of the road and kept buried because he upsets everybody. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, who led for the Government in this debate, is able to talk to all sections of the industrial relations world. He has a proven record and an understanding of industrial relations, having worked in that area. The great tragedy on the Opposition side is that it does not have people who have sat on both sides of the negotiating table. Most honourable members opposite have not sat on any side of the table. The problem is that they do not understand industrial relations. They do not understand that arrangements are made through consultation and discussion and that when such discussions are held the best possible result is achieved. The Opposition's approach of going into the industrial relations area with the blunt end of the axe will not achieve anything at all. The working men and women of Australia, will come to understand that in the next few months. They will know what it would mean and what a decline in their living standards it would cause. They will know that unless they are employed in a high-profit industry or a high-profit shop they will suffer. The Opposition's policies would bring in a real decline in living standards. When the people of Australia ascertain that and understand it they will reject any proposals put forward. Whether they are printed in black and white or whatever, they will be rejected by the people of Australia. The Opposition refuses to accept the fact that people on both sides of industry can sit down and work out industrial relations issues. That has been done time and again and it will continue to be done, because the Government will be in office for a long time. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Motion (by Mr Barry Jones)-by leave-agreed to: That the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) be discharged from attendance on the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, and that, in his place, the honourable member for Forde (Dr Watson) be appointed a member of the Committee. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(3.56) —I move: Excise Tariff Proposals No. 10 (1986) and Customs Tariff Proposals Nos 15 and 16 (1986). The proposals I have just tabled relate to proposed alterations to the Excise Tariff Act 1921 and the Customs Tariff Act 1982. Excise Tariff Proposals No. 10 (1986) and Customs Tariff Proposals No. 15 (1986) formally place before Parliament, as required by law, tariff alterations made by notices published in the Gazette during the recent recess. These proposals, operative on and from the 13 September 1986, provide for reduced rates of duty on certain refined petroleum products resulting from the Government's latest decision on the pricing of indigenous crude oil and related issues. The decision was announced by my colleague the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) in a Press release on 26 August 1986. The date for the decreases in duty is the same as the operative date determined by the Prices Surveillance Authority for the new wholesale prices for petrol. Excise Tariff Proposals No. 10 (1986) decrease the excise duty on the relevant locally produced petroleum products. Excise duty on motor spirit and diesel is reduced by 3.699c per litre to 20.185c per litre. The reductions for aviation gasoline and aviation kerosene are 3.114c per litre and 2.958c per litre respectively. For other kerosene, fuel oil and heating oil the reduction is 0.767c per litre. Customs Tariff Proposal No. 15 (1986) make complementary changes to the Customs Tariff Act in respect of duties applying to equivalent imported refined petroleum products. I would also advise honourable members that rates of diesel fuel rebate decrease in conjunction with these duty changes. The new rebate rate for currently eligible use of diesel fuel will be 20.185c per litre in respect of primary production, 17.797c per litre for mining operations, and 15.369c per litre for other prescribed use in residential premises, homes for aged persons, nursing homes, hospitals and other institutions providing medical or nursing care. Honourable members will note that the rebate for eligible primary production remains a 100 per cent rebate of the duty and the new rebate rate for eligible mining operations effectively means no change in duty payable. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 16 (1986), operative on and from 1 October 1986, contain a number of changes associated with the Government's sectoral policy for passenger motor vehicles. The validity period for 1986 base quota for motor vehicles is being extended by two months to 31 March 1987 while the validity period for all new motor vehicle quotas is being extended to 18 months from the period of 14 months which currently applies. Existing 1986 tender quotas will continue to operate under the 14 month validity period which expires on 31 January 1987. The 18 month period for new motor vehicle quotas will permit three months anticipation before the calendar year and a three month carry-over after the conclusion of that year. The 1987 single period tender scheme commences on 1 October 1986 and vehicles imported under its provisions will attract a general tariff rate of 57.5 per cent. This rate represents no increase over the base quota rate. The multiple period tender scheme is to operate for each of four periods of 18 months commencing on 1 October in each of the years 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989. Vehicles imported in each of these quota periods will attract a general tariff rate of 60.5 per cent, three percentage points higher than the base quota rate. The final change in proposals No. 16 involves the rate of duty to apply to under-quota imports of passenger motor vehicles qualifying for developing country preference. In accordance with the principles of the revised Australian system of tariff preferences for imports from developing countries which formed part of the Customs Tariff Amendment Act 1986, all new quotas are to have a margin of preference of five percentage points. This is a change from the 7.5 percentage points applying to quotas already in existence at the time of implementation of the revised developing countries preference scheme. Summaries of the alterations contained in these proposals have been prepared and are being circulated to honourable members. I commend the proposals to the house. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Debate resumed from 17 September, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(4.01) —There is probably no more significant area affecting the welfare of a large percentage of the Australian people than their superannuation benefit. Superannuation applies in a number of different sectors-in the private sector through funds to which individual employees make their contribution; in the Services, where there is membership either through the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits or the Defence Forces Retirement and Death Benefits schemes; and in the Commonwealth Public Service where there is a Commonwealth superannuation fund. Of course, in the States, universities and other areas of public sector employment, there are parallels to the Commonwealth superannuation entitlement. The Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Bill 1986 specifically applies to the superannuation entitlement of Commonwealth and defence personnel. It is a very significant sector of the community, and it is a sector which, perhaps more than many others, has been led to believe by successive governments that its superannuation entitlement was a fundamental reason for its retaining that type of employment. We all know that many Commonwealth public servants, particularly as they reach the middle to senior stages of their careers, recognise that the pay available outside their present employment would be significantly better than it is in the Commonwealth Public Service. If that applies in the civil service, how much more does it apply in the Services? There, unfortunately, we have had a progressive deterioration in the terms and conditions of employment. I will say something in a moment about the number of people who are retiring or resigning prematurely from the service. The reality is that, sadly, in our two major capital cities on the east cost-Sydney and Melbourne-the respect that was traditionally given to people in uniform is not as it used to be. There has been all this arrant nonsense pursued by members of the Labor Party, and particularly by the socialist left of the Labor Party, in peace studies, saying the defence forces are out there promoting war while there is another element out there promoting peace. That is absolute nonsense. The reality is that the Australian Defence Force is in the front line of promoting peace for Australia, of trying to defend this country and of trying to ensure, wherever Australia's national interest runs, that there is security and that that security can be obtained by maximising the deterrent impact of what would happen to any potential aggressor. I feel very sad when I see photographs, as I did only a couple of days ago, of some absolute miscreant-a Mickey Mouse terrorist-putting his own life at risk. But never mind his own life; he was putting the lives of others at risk in trying to demonstrate against the presence in Australian waters of visitors for the Royal Australian Navy's seventy-fifth anniversary. Those Mickey Mouse terrorists affect the lives of innocent people just as much as any terrorist in France or anyone who tries to blow up some installation around the world or to hijack an aircraft. They are trying to get personal publicity and are putting at risk the lives of policemen, of other innocent bystanders-the people out there in their water craft-and of people aboard those ships, many of whom are distinguished overseas visitors to this country, and all of whom are here, not because they wish us ill, but because they are members of an alliance with Australia to try to preserve for Australians the opportunity for peace. Therefore, I feel very strongly that the circumstances of those in uniform and the fact that they are not given the high recognition which I believe they deserve need to be put into perspective when one looks at this legislation. There are other elements within the terms and conditions of service personnel which have deteriorated and which the Labor Party in government generally tends to play down. Of course, Labor members are trying to make big fellows of themselves and their concern for the Defence Force. They talk about the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities, and then they withdraw our defence attaches from the entire region that affects us. They talk about the Dibb report and set a 10-year no-threat horizon. That 10-year no-threat horizon guarantees that Australia could find itself totally disadvantaged because the options that should be available for mounting a reasonable defence deterrent or a defence retaliation will be limited, because the program of Dibb is to make sure that our force is reduced more and more and that we have only a minimal deterrent capability related to low-level insurgencies. The combination of all those factors shows that superannuation is about the one element of the defence forces that gives to them some greater benefit than that available perhaps in other sectors, although, as I shall explain in a moment, even that is questionable. But one thing that people need to understand is that, at a time when the superannuation entitlement of the defence forces is so important, because all those other factors have deteriorated, this Government has mounted a constant attack against that superannuation benefit. Yet before the 1983 election, the then shadow Minister for Defence, who is now the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes), said that he guaranteed that there would be no change affecting DFRDB or DFRB entitlement implemented by a Labor government. It is like all the other promises, including the one that there would be no capital gains tax. Remember that litany of lies? They have all been there from the Labor Party, and this incompetent Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), who is out there daily berating us about the state of the economy, cannot even get his sums right. As far as the defence forces are concerned, there has been a constant erosion of the quality and quantity of that benefit. What makes superannuation even more important to service people is that, unlike members of the civilian work force, they have an obligation to leave their chosen profession earlier than everyone else in the community. They are not leaving the Service because they are fed up with their careers. It is not because they are unable to make a worthwhile contribution. But the deliberate policy of governments has always been to try to attract and retain younger generations in the Services, because the nature of the warrior obligation is essentially for young men and women. We see that premature retirement for a 20-year man, a nine-year man or a six-year man or woman is such that there should be a greater than normal benefit for those who retire and there should be a carrot instead of a stick when dealing with the inducement of superannuation and when considering the impact that it has on service personnel. What has happened is that the Government has introduced a tax regime which unduly penalises service people, because they are forced to retire before the 55-year cut-off point for the concessional tax obligation. Of course, the Government says: `We have adjusted all of that'. But, as is the case in regard to another piece of legislation that we are about to consider-that is, that relating to the taxing of Reserve personnel pay-the Government has gone about the whole process by trying to treat service personnel in a totally discriminatory fashion. I am particularly concerned because not only are there very serious difficulties for those in the Services today, but also the nature of their employment is more hazardous than that of those in civilian employment. The tenure of occupancy of their professional career is shorter than for civilian careers. Generally, they are paid less than their civilian equivalents and they are certainly paid less than their civil service equivalents. In that climate, their superannuation entitlement is absolutely critical. For that reason, we are very concerned about the moves announced in the Budget which have now been followed by the legislation that is before the House. What I want to do first, in looking at this legislation, is to look at what the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said and what the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) said, because this will show one of the other typical deceit patterns of Labor in office. On page 10 of the printed copy of the Budget Speech that has been distributed the Treasurer states: Accordingly, at the next National Wage Case when the combined 4.0 per cent movement in the March and June quarter Consumer Price Index will be considered, the Government will argue- will argue, mind you, Mr Deputy Speaker- to the Arbitration Commission that the proposed increase in wages be cut by 2 per cent. Let me repeat that: . . . the Government will argue to the Arbitration Commission that the proposed increase in wages be cut by 2 per cent. It will not be a cut; it will be an argument. It will not be something that is implemented in the Budget; it will be a case that is presented, perhaps persuasively, but there will be an opportunity for the trade unions to present a counter point of view. There will be an opportunity for argument and there will be an arbiter, which is the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, to determine whether wages will be discounted by that 2 per cent. Let us look at the Minister's second reading speech. Of course, he is the Minister who, we remember, had some problems with Jeremy Cordeaux at 5DN. Mr White —Scoop. Mr SINCLAIR —He is known as `Scoop'. That is right. In his speech he stated: Accordingly, as announced in the Budget Speech- I have just read the relevant part of the Budget Speech. I ask those who are listening to balance what the Treasurer said with what the Minister said. He continued: . . . the 2 per cent wage discount recently applied to wages . . . It has not been applied to wages; it will be argued. The Minister stated in his second reading speech that it has been applied to wages. That is a total falsity. It is not correct that it has been applied to wages. It is a submission that is to be made to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It is one that is arguable and it is one against which the Australian Council of Trade Unions can present a case and will present a case. If we are to believe it, it will certainly be mirrored against other demands that are currently being made in the negotiations of this ridiculous accord mark 3 that seems to be high on the Government's present agenda. But the Minister stated: . . . the 2 per cent wage discount recently applied to wages is to be extended to government superannuation benefits . . . The reality is that what has happened is that the Government has introduced legislation in advance of consideration by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It has set a date, 10 October 1986, for the commencement of this legislation, which is in advance of the consideration by the Arbitration Commission-in the words of the Treasurer in his Budget Speech-at the next national wage case. It is applying it in such a way that legislatively there can be no presentation by any service pensioner, any Commonwealth pensioner, of his side of the story. I have tried to set out briefly the concerns that I have about the importance of superannuation for defence people. It is absolutely critical, because all the other benefits of the Defence Force have just about gone. This Government, day by day, erodes those conditions. The DFRDB and DFRB entitlements were seen as some inducement for those highly qualified, highly skilled non-commissioned officers and officers, who are absolutely critical for the Defence Force, to remain in the Australian Defence Force. But what does the Government do? In advance of consideration by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, and without there being any opportunity for argument, the Government has decided that their pensions will be discounted as of 10 October 1986 to the levels that would have applied if the increase in July 1986 had been based on an increase of 7.2 per cent instead of the consumer price index increase of 9.2 per cent. The whole reason for this is to ensure that superannuitants are penalised. I have said before that this Government has consistently attacked superannuation. We used to provide a very worthwhile personal income tax deduction. It was an incentive for people to belong to superannuation schemes. We had the idea that superannuation was a good thing. There are many people in the community who would wish during their working years to set some funds aside to try to have a benefit when they actually retire. The whole concept of superannuation, we thought, was worthy of encouragement. The Government has removed the tax concession. The obligation of service personnel is such that frequently they have to move from one place to another every two or three years. They do not even have an opportunity to buy a home. So the idea of commutation of the pension, we thought, was worth while. What has the Government done? It has introduced that penal tax rate. It then says: `We have made a bit of an adjustment so that people are not that much worse off'. Firstly, it took about 12 months before the adjustment was introduced; secondly, people are still penalised by the additional tax that they are called on to pay; and, thirdly, as I have mentioned, because they retire earlier than the average person in civilian employment, they are unduly penalised. They are paying at a higher rate because they are almost exclusively under 55 years of age when they step down from service life. The whole purpose of that commutation of pension was to give them a lump sum of money to buy a house, to set up in business, to start up as small businessmen. But this Government is not interested in assisting people to do that. It has always had the attitude which was expressed today by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West), who extolled the virtues of public housing. What he should be doing is extolling the opportunity for people to invest in homes, to attract savings. The Government wonders what is wrong with the country. It knocks people who try to save. What it ought to be doing, if it is going to put money in that area, is encouraging people to buy their own homes, to encourage Australians to do what people in other countries are doing, so that they have a bit of a nest egg. Quite obviously, a comparison can be made between Australia and Japan. Japan encourages savings. Japan's yen is strong. Australia's dollar is weak. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) said during the discussion of the matter of public importance earlier this afternoon, the world's best Treasurer has presided over the reduction in Australia's credit rating from triple AAA to AA1. The reality is that he has devalued Australia, as he has devalued the Australian dollar. Mr Cobb —Bananas. Mr SINCLAIR —He is devaluing Australia, as my colleague says, in the banana mode, by affecting people in receipt of superannuation benefits and people on fixed incomes. A succession of taxes have penalised them and put them at a disadvantage. It concerns us that the Government is not only doing this arbitrarily, but also doing it without those people having any opportunity to argue the case. The Government's claims to equity in its treatment of wage earners, age pensioners, Commonwealth superannuitants and DFRB-DFRDB pensioners falls apart under close examination. For wage earners, as I have mentioned, the Government will allow a 2 per cent discounting of the 4 per cent CPI movement in the March and June quarters. This has not yet even been argued, much less approved. In any case, one can be sure that it can be expected to operate only from the date of operation of the wages decision. That will probably be some time in December. I have looked at the case of non-argument. I have looked at the contradiction between what the Minister said and what the Treasurer said. We now get to the time of commencement-10 October, according to this Bill; probably some time in December for the wage earners of Australia. So all of those people who were led to believe that if they tried to care for themselves they would be right are being kicked in the backside by dear old R. J. L. Hawke and his minions. I think it is very sad, because the wage earners will at least receive their full benefit until his commencement date, whatever it might be-some time in December. For aged pensioners, the Government proposes to defer to mid-December the 4 per cent indexation increase due in early November, which is roughly equivalent to a one-off cut of about $26. But Commonwealth superannuitants and the DFRB-DFRDB recipients are hit particularly hard because the discounting will have a cumulative effect. It will not only reduce the benefit now but also reduce the increases they could expect to receive in future years. They typical DFRB-DFRDB pensioner will see his or her pension reduced by $161.54 in 1986-87 with the cost compounding to $2,031.83 over 10 years, assuming an inflation rate of 5 per cent, and that is probably being a bit ambitious. Effects of a similar nature will apply to all Commonwealth superannuitants. The effect of this measure will cost every recipient of DFRDB and DFRB, as well as Commonwealth superannuitants, about $2,000 over the next 10 years. It is not a light change that is proposed. It is not something that will affect beneficiaries by about $162 this year and only this year. The cost to them over 10 years will be in excess of $2,000. As a result of the legislation, the Government expects to save $7.9m in public service superannuation this year and $11m in 1987-88. It expects to save a further $4.7m in Service pensions this year and $6.3m more in 1987-88. About 30,000 people receive DFRDB-DFRB benefits, including ex-service personnel and widows. About 1,200 children are beneficiaries. The average pension payment is about $10,000 a year. We should understand that in many ways we are not talking about pensions in the normal sense for servicemen. For most, it is a form of compensation, in the same manner as workers' compensation for those who are injured at work. It is compensation for those who commit themselves and their lives to the hazards of Service life. They are given a DFRDB-DFRB entitlement, and the entitlement of $10,000 a year should be viewed in that light. This legislation means that the typical married service pensioner will receive an increase of only $230 this year despite having contributed 5.5 per cent of his or her salary for at least 20 years in the belief that there would be a full adjustment of the pension in accordance with the movements of the consumer price index. The Press statement that has been issued on behalf of the Regular Defence Force Welfare Association by Major-General John Whitelaw states: The Minister assisting the Minister for Defence- that is the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy)- in a recent letter said `In DFRDB matters, it is the Parliament which must legislate changes to the Scheme. This is very substantial protection for members because it means that their conditions cannot be changed by a Government in an arbitrary way'. What the devil is it that the Government is doing if it is not arbitrary? What could be more arbitrary than the Budget changes and the misadjustment that has been made by the man who is Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford)? The changes that he announced in his second reading speech are as arbitrary as anything could be. This is the second time that the Government's 1983 election promise has been broken. It taxed the benefits and now it is reducing them. It is doing so arbitrarily and discriminatorily without anyone in the Services or the Public Service having any opportunity at all to argue his case. The Government's attacks have sadly created serious problems for the Australian defence forces. Male officer resignations for the first seven months of 1986 were 562, almost as many as the total throughout 1985. Sadly, there is no sign of any improvement. In July and August, the RAAF alone lost 22 skilled pilots, who had been trained at a cost more than $1m each. They are leaving the Services, because the Government is not prepared to provide them with the sort of inducement that they deserve. It is prepared to lop off their superannuation benefit, not to give an inducement to serve and not to take into account the parallel opportunities that are in international and domestic airlines. Any pilot in the RAAF must have skills that are at least equal to those who fly transport operations, and we all know that those who fly Air Force aircraft go through a significant training period. The skills that they acquire are regarded highly and those skills are not being compensated for in any way, and now they are to be knocked again. Service personnel are leaving the Services, and part of the reason for this happening is the Government's failure to understand that the total measure of pay and conditions that they enjoy is part of the inducement of belonging to the Services. If the Government does not maintain that level of attraction, Service personnel will leave the Services and the Australian Defence Force, whatever the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) might say, will suffer. One third of the Air Force's losses in the whole of the previous 12 months has been lost in July and August this year. Again, that puts into perspective part of the problem of the increasing number of resignations. Australian Defence Force losses are unsustainable. As a senior RAAF officer warned in a detailed study this year, unless the losses are stemmed, the RAAF will have to curtail its functions. The FA18 will not be able to be brought into service in the numbers that are now envisaged, and our P3C aircraft are already operating with a serious air crew shortage. It is clear that at all ranks at all levels in all Services skilled personnel are being lost faster than they are being recruited and trained. This cannot continue. This year, for the first time, Duntroon has not been able to meet all the entries that are required for next year out of its first call for volunteers while maintaining its standards. That all shows that the Government has not yet got into its noggin that if it wants to get people into the Services it must treat them at least as generously as it does those who are in the civil service. It must take into account the competitive conditions that are enjoyed by those who are in the civilian community. Measures such as the legislation which is before us are adding fuel to an already dangerous wild fire. That is why the Opposition has called repeatedly for a detailed inquiry by the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal into the pay and conditions of the ADF compared with those that apply in the private sector and the Public Service. The Dibb report and the forthcoming White Paper on Defence have received plenty of publicity, but the reality is that unless skilled people are available to operate the highly technical and sophisticated equipment of the ADF, everything will be lost. The Opposition is most concerned that the Bill is yet another cross that the servicemen and servicewomen of Australia will be called upon to bear. The Armed Forces Federation of Australia's Federal Executive has written to me under the hand of its Federal President, Mr Bob Copley, to express its concern about the Bill. It is concerned especially about a number of aspects of it. It states: Under the guise of extending the 2 per cent wage discount applying to wages, the Treasurer proposes `discounting' Defence Force Pensions by an equivalent percentage. Unfortunately, this is not what it seems. It is not a notice that a future increase will be discounted. Rather, it involves a decrease in pensions that are being paid now, with effect from October. That sounds as though the measure is retrospective, but I am assured that while the interest is being paid from July to October, the discounting will apply only to benefits paid from 10 October. I am advised that the measure is not retrospective and that discounting will apply to payments from 10 October, but this is contrary to the arrangements that the Armed Forces Federation of Australia believed would apply, which was the full CPI movement over the next 12 months. I have mentioned the parallel between civilian pensions and wages. The Federation's second objection is that the Bill effectively takes money . . . from people's pockets and forces them to arrange their finances accordingly. This contrasts with the situation of `wage discounting' where warning is given and discounting occurs before an indexation increase is paid. In this case the reduction is real and its effect will compound in the future. The effect will compound, and the cost will be more than $2,000 for many service beneficiaries in the future. In that circumstance, the Federation's concern is fully justified. The Federation's letter continues: The proposal would again differ from `wage discounting' in that it denies any semblance of `natural justice'. Unlike `wage discounting' the proposed DFRDB discount has not been contested on its merits before any industrial tribunal. Consequently, neither recipients nor their representatives have had the opportunity to present any mitigating case. The Opposition is concerned about that and I have tried to set down the circumstances where that applies. The Federation has asked for three specific guarantees, which are as follows: 1. Ensure any future alterations are made through legislation separate to the DFRDB Act, including a `sunset clause' limiting its lifetime-as occurred with the Salaries and Wages Pause Act. That is not specifically applicable to the Bill because the Opposition understands that a once-off discounting is proposed. Accordingly, a `sunset clause' is not applicable. Secondly, the Federation has asked that the Government: Ensure reductions, if any, are determined only by the outcome of the next National Wage Case. We believe that that is highly desirable and would have been a far preferable course for the Government to take. Thirdly, the Federation asks that the Government: Guarantee that the power to alter pension rates continues to rest solely with the Parliament and is not delegated as an administrative function. To that we say: `Hear, hear!' The Opposition treats the provisions in the Bill as being part of the Government's Budget. It is concerned about overall public sector spending and it does not like the package. It does not like the Government's presentation. However, we do not believe that it is appropriate for us in this climate to oppose the Bill, although in government we would be acting in an entirely different way. We regret that the Government has introduced the measure in such a way that if we vote against it we shall affect the amount to be spent this year. It is only on the basis that there would, therefore, be an increase in government spending, at a time when it has not cut government spending enough, that we find ourselves in the predicament of opposing the context of what it does but not being able to vote against it. In that climate, therefore, I move: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House- (1) expresses its concern that the level of discounting of superannuation, Defence Forces Retirement Benefits (DFRB) and Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits (DFRDB) pensions imposed by the legislation has not yet been proposed in a National Wage Case, let alone given effect by a decision of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, and notes that: (a) the Bill imposes on Commonwealth superannuitants, without consultation, a burden greater than that proposed for the community generally, in that it will come into effect before equivalent discounting of wages is even considered; (b) discounting of DFRB and DFRDB pensions further erodes conditions of service in the Australian Defence Force (ADF) at a time when ADF resignations are at near-crisis level, and (c) the Bill breaks, for the second time, Labor's 1983 election promise not to cut DFRB and DFRDB benefits, and (2) further calls on the Government to direct the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal, as a matter of urgency, to inquire into the adequacy of pay and conditions of service in the ADF compared with those in the private sector and public service'. We believe that the Bill is not appropriate and we urge all honourable members of the House to support that in-principle opposition, for in government we would act in a totally different fashion. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr White —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Mr MOUNTFORD(Banks)(4.31) —I rise to support the Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Bill 1986, and to oppose the amendment moved by the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair). The legislation before us today is more concrete proof of the Hawke Government's determination to make the hard economic decisions which are necessary to see us through our current difficulties and its commitment to see that the burdens of the next 12 months are shouldered fairly throughout the community. Through legislation such as this Bill, the Government is putting into practice the restraint which Australians have universally acknowledged is necessary at present. Amid the complaints and objections of the Opposition, it is necessary to keep in mind why we need such changes as this legislation, and to retain our perspective of which members of the community are being asked to make sacrifices. The bottom line reality, which even the Opposition by now must understand, is our adverse balance of trade. It is not the fault of the Government, the unions or business that the products which we sell overseas have undergone a staggering loss in value over recent times. This year alone has seen $6 billion slashed from our export earnings. As the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said in his Budget Speech, we cannot sustain such price falls and carry on as if nothing has happened. The reaction of this Government has been sane, just and responsible-in short, the very opposite of what the Opposition's has been. Admittedly, we do not know too much about exactly what the Opposition would have done, but we can be fairly sure that the present Government's welfare cut of $500m would look fairly paltry compared to what our opponents would have done. The keynote to Labor's restraint, whether in welfare or wages, has been the discounting of future consumer price index increases, rather than the more draconian outright cuts which those on the other side of the House would prefer. Whilst we recognise the need to adjust our standards in line with our changed trading circumstances, the Government's philosophy is to do this over time through granting less than full flow-ons. This method gives people more leeway to cope with the changes ahead. Thus pensioners and social security clients will have their normal November six-monthly adjustment delayed until mid-December. Even this practice is minimal when compared to that asked of wage earners, who will have their next CPI rise of 4 per cent cut back to 2 per cent. Indeed the workers of this country, for all the recent talk in the Press about bullying trade unions, have shown remarkable responsibility over the life of the prices and incomes accord in holding back wage rises. In fact, we have seen in this country a fall in real wages over the last three years of 5 per cent at a time when real wages of some of our major trading partners, including Japan, have been rising. In this climate of restraint and responsibility each section of the community has been asked to make sacrifices. I am proud to be able to say that most Australians have accepted the challenge. There are a handful of whingers who are still complaining about the loss of the fringe benefits rort, but by and large the community has responded positively. The Bill before us asks for that same commitment, albeit to a lesser degree, from two other groups in the community-Commonwealth superannuitants, and Defence Force retirees under the relevant Acts. Effectively, those who draw a pension or superannuation payment under the five Acts concerned are being asked to forgo 2 per cent of their nominal increase under the CPI flow-on. This increase is made every year in July, the increase being based upon the CPI increase in the six capital cities from March to March. In the current year a rise of 9.2 per cent was granted. The present Bill reduces the flow-on from 9.2 per cent to 7.2 per cent from 10 October this year, so that the new pension will be modified as if the increase given in July had been 7.2 per cent. The groups to be affected by the move fall into two major categories: Firstly, those under the Commonwealth Superannuation Acts 1922 and 1976; secondly, those Defence Force personnel who receive pensions under the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948 and the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973. A third and far smaller category are affected under the Papua New Guinea (Staffing Assistance) (Superannuation) Regulations. The sacrifice being asked of superannuation recipients is certainly no greater than that which the bulk of the work force is already making, and it is also a decrease which in total will reduce outlays considerably. Under the superannuation Acts alone, $7.9m is expected to be saved in 1986-7, while $11m will be saved in the following financial year. The savings under the Defence Force funds will be $4.7m this financial year and $6.3m in the next. The new arrangements will affect more than 112,000 beneficiaries under the present Act, including the spouses and children of former beneficiaries. The crux of the legislation deals with a future reduction of the 9.2 per cent annual CPI increase by 2 per cent, so that persons retiring after the CPI rise was granted have already had their payments accounted for as part of their salary entitlement on retirement. The reduction will take place in this way: From 10 October pensions will be readjusted as if the 9.2 per cent increase granted in July had been only 7.2 per cent for the year. The pension will then be changed to give that outcome for the year. Thus a pension of $10,452, which was the average pension paid for the year ended 30 June 1985, when adjusted for a 9.2 per cent rise in July would normally expect to attract a $962 increase over the year. The increase now will be $753 for the year or a loss of $4 per week. No money will be reclaimed, but, rather, the increase will be reduced to create the same outcome for the entire year. The decreases are thus not retrospective but account for a full year's adjustment. I now turn to the recipients under the Commonwealth superannuation scheme. This move has been billed as harsh and discriminatory against those in the public sector; but that is not so, because the annual method of making indexation increases has put retirees in a better position than that of their colleagues still at work. In 1961, 1963, 1967 and 1971 the government-financed portion of pensions was increased by the `notional salary' method, whereby pensions were upgraded in line with updated levels of a pensioner's retirement salary. From 1973, however, a new system of annual increase was introduced. From 1976 the annual increase has been updated in line with the consumer price index. As is well known, the overall wage outcomes under the accord have been below full CPI increases, and the area of white collar workers is no different. Between 30 June 1976 and 30 June 1986 Commonwealth superannuation scheme pensions operating under the 1922 Act increased by 171 per cent. Those under the 1976 Act have increased by 139 per cent. By comparison, the salary for a clerk class 2/3 public servant has increased by only 117 per cent. The discounting now called for will reduce the increase for 1922 Act pensions to 165 per cent while 1976 Act pensions will be down to 135 per cent. These figures are still in excess of the salary increase of people still working. It would be the height of unfairness for this Government to expect one group to shoulder the full burden while letting another portion of the community go scot free. It can be seen as especially inequitable when it is noted that superannuitants have already outstripped workers' pay rises by so much. I would now like to deal with defence forces retirees who will be affected by the present Act. There has been a good deal of controversy about the proposed changes to defence pensions, most recently in yesterday's Australian. The complaint made is that former members of the defence forces are being asked to make greater sacrifices than pensioners in general. According to one report, their decrease will be six times greater than that of the average age pensioner. I do not wish to enter into the arithmetic of that claim but I would question the validity of the comparison. Those employing the argument are playing on public ignorance of the facts and are assuming that a Defence Force retiree is in the same position as an age pensioner, yet that is not the case at all. If we look at last year's Defence Force retirees who claim pensions under the two relevant Acts, we see that 2,230 men and women took up the pension. Of these, 79 per cent were 45 years old or younger and 56 per cent were 40 years old or younger. It is quite common practice for service personnel upon retiring to commence a new career in another sphere of life altogether. In such circumstances the Defence Force retirement benefit becomes a rather useful second income. Even if the person under consideration is retired, the probability is that he or she has invested in some further retirement benefit in the course of his or her second career, in which case the Defence Force benefit is again a comfortable addition. The comparison between the average age pensioner and the average Defence Force pensioner is therefore just not on. Either those who make the comparison are unaware of the facts or, worse, they are deliberately trying to mislead the public into believing that an injustice has been done. I call on them to come clean with the full story. Even if we consider the case of that very small group of persons who rely on the Defence Force pension for their entire income in retirement, we must take into account the fact that such a person can also claim a proportion of the age pension. In the case of a married couple on the average Defence Force benefit, which from 10 October this year will be $9,934 per annum, the addition of the age pension proportion will make them approximately $121 a week better off than the equivalent age pensioner couple. When we consider the delay in the introduction of legislation against poverty traps we can see that in comparison with age pensioners Defence Force retirees have done very well. Those who persist in drawing out this facile comparison are doing no more than playing to the gallery, engaging in a cynical show for their own electoral benefit. No one likes to have to make cuts, even in the national interest. Even less pleasant is to be on the receiving end of those cuts. By forcing unreasonable comparisons, the Opposition is attempting to make injustice out of an exercise which is manifestly equitable. The Opposition's argument is a double deceit. On the one hand it creates the impression that the superannuitants concerned should not be touched by the present decreases, thus leaving more burden to be shouldered by the rest of the community. On the other hand, we know that any Opposition Budget would leave out the really needy far more than our Budget did. We know that the $500m cut in welfare outlays was not enough for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). We know too that the Opposition would abandon altogether the next national wage rise and put working men and women on a wage freeze for at least a year while prices rose unhindered around them. For the Opposition to claim now that defence pensions are sacrosanct is the height of hypocrisy. I say in conclusion that this Bill is another dose of that hard medicine about which we have heard so much. Like our initiatives towards restraint, it blends equity with responsibility, ensuring that no section of the community has to take on a burden too great for it. No section of the community is unfairly or harshly dealt with by these changes, and I am certain that those affected by this Bill will accept the changes in the general understanding of a need for restraint. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(4.45) —If the honourable member for Banks (Mr Mountford) thinks there is general acceptance of the Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Bill he should talk to some of the people who will be affected. As for saying that there should be some equity in this deal, he fails to understand that the servicemen and women and all of the other Commonwealth superannuitants have paid into a superannuation fund over many years. It is their money the honourable member was talking about. To compare such people with an age pensioner is totally false because over a number of years superannuitants have paid at least 5 1/2 per cent of their salary into their fund. The honourable member has to understand the fundamental difference. This Bill reduces benefits to superannuated ex-servicemen and women and former Commonwealth employees. As far as the ex-service men and women are concerned, it is being introduced in the very year in which the Royal Australian Navy is celebrating its seventy-fifth anniversary and, as outlined by the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair), in the very year servicemen are leaving the Services in droves. One must ask why this is happening. One of the reasons is the Government's continued assault on the servicemen and women of this country. This is an arbitrary decision which cuts across all previous promises and expectations. The irony of it is that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced in the Budget a general call for belt-tightening, yet today in Question Time we saw just how far the Treasurer is prepared to pull in his belt. The honourable member for Blaxland represents a Sydney suburb, but where does he live? He lives in Canberra. He is the man who is calling for servicemen to be restrained and discounting- Mr Hand —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. That is not relevant to the Bill and, besides, a substantial number of members of the Opposition were mentioned in Question Time as well. I argue that the honourable member is drifting quite some distance from the Bill in raising Question Time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr Porter —He is not. He is talking about the double standards of your Treasurer. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Chair does not need any help from the honourable member for Barker. Mr Hand —Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask you to rule that the honourable member return to the legislation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. I will listen carefully to what the honourable member has to say and if he strays I will rule. Mr WHITE —Mr Deputy Speaker, I appreciate the ruling you have made. The honourable member for Melbourne will be on his feet again in a minute. The fact is that this legislation is a budgetary measure. The Treasurer is the member of the Government who is basically responsible for the Budget. It is the Treasurer who is calling for servicemen and women and other Commonwealth superannuitants to tighten their belt. I am saying to honourable members and everyone in Australia that the Treasurer is the one fellow in Australia who refuses to tighten his belt. Not only that, he dips into the public purse to the extent of some $18,000 a year. Mr Mountford —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The matters that the honourable member is raising are not relevant to the Bill. If he wishes to talk about something that was raised in the House earlier, he should also raise the issue of the Leader of the National Party dipping far more deeply than the Treasurer into the public purse. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. I ask the honourable member for McPherson to make the link with the measure before the chamber or to get back to the legislation. Mr WHITE —I thought I had explained that this is a Budget Bill and that the Budget is the responsibility of the Treasurer. I find it obscene, to use a word from the vocabulary of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), that the Treasurer is asking these superannuitants-many of them ex-service men and women-to forgo 2 per cent of the consumer price index and that at the same time manipulate the system to give himself an extra $18,000 a year. Mr Mountford —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The ruling you gave to the honourable member has been ignored. I raise the same point of order as I raised earlier. I ask you to insist that the honourable member heed your instructions. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member, in the points he just made, was indulging in valid debating points. I would ask that the honourable member for McPherson get to the material matter in the Bill as soon as he can. Mr WHITE —Mr Deputy Speaker, I hear what you say and I return to the main thrust of the Bill, having made the point, and without dwelling on it again, I find it obscene for this sort of call to be made by that person. When the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) was introducing this Bill he said that the Bill was to be brought in so that the burden of sacrifice was spread equally across all people. I think that Australians generally agree that sacrifice is called for equally. The economy is in a mess by the Treasurer's own pronouncements. People will accept some equal sacrifice. But these particular superannuitants are being called upon to make a greater sacrifice than the rest of the community. A lot of the money the Government is talking about in discounting the 2 per cent CPI belongs to those superannuitants and has been contributed to this pension over a great number of years. Mr Mountford —What is the subsidy? Mr WHITE —The honourable member kept making references to age pensions and service superannuitants. The difference is that it is their money. Service men and women, above all people, require this superannuation particularly to help stabilise themselves in civilian life. Some of them have lived in 20 or more houses during their service life. This is their superannuation which they use basically to re-establish themselves and to live on. It is also a compensation for a very short service life. They pay into it at a higher rate, and they expect a greater benefit under a contract which they understood had been made between themselves and successive governments and which would stand firm, so that during the disruption to their service life they would have some surety and when their service came to an end they would not be penalised. By an arbitrary decision they now have a 2 per cent discounting on the CPI. According to the figures I have, pensioners have to wait a while to get their full pension, the full increase, and they will lose some $26 a year. These superannuitants will miss out on $161 this year and as it is a discounting, not just a wait, they will never catch up because subsequent increases will be based on a lower rate-that is, less 2 per cent. We are seeing yet another assault on the Services. It is quite true to say without any exaggeration that what is happening in the Services is little short of criminal. Resignations from the Services have never been higher. This fact was highlighted about a week ago by the Fleet Commander, Rear-Admiral Knox, who went public-a most unusual thing for a senior serviceman to do-and said on the morning news that unless these resignations halt, the fleet will become inoperable. We are seeing a total debilitation of our armed Services for various reasons which are not the subject of this legislation. Those people have battled on and on over the years to give service to their country. They are now listening to this debate; some of them are in the gallery and a lot of them are listening to the broadcast. They are witnessing the Government break yet another promise. The surety of the CPI indexation, when they retire, is being broken. On 16 July this year the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) said that there would be no discounting. It is just another broken promise in a long list of promises. The election promise of 1983 that retirement benefits will be kept is being broken. We have a continuing assault on the Services, and this legislation is part of it. Mr Hand —Why did you resign? Mr WHITE —Why are they resigning if the honourable member knows so much? I resigned to come in here and fix the honourable member up. I came in here because I could not stand the sight of people such as the honourable member for Melbourne coming into this place and posturing. If there is one thing I will do, it will be to stay here until he is finished. That is why I am here. In conclusion, we object to the 2 per cent discounting of the CPI. We believe that it is an assault on the Services. It is one of the reasons why servicemen and women are leaving in droves. The Services will continue to deteriorate while the Government takes this casual approach to our armed Services. If there is one requirement of Government, it is to defend its people and its territories. It shall be the prime principle of any government. The Government will be thrown out because of this stupid legislation. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(4.58) —I support the Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Bill. It provides that pensions payable to, or in relation to, former Commonwealth Government employees and Defence Force personnel shall be effectively discounted by 2 per cent. The extraordinary circumstances of the economy over the last two years have required the Government to take a number of tough decisions, but more importantly, it has necessitated all members of the community accepting and sharing the cost of reduced government expenditure. That is primarily what this legislation is all about. Accordingly, as it was announced in the Budget last month, the 2 per cent wage discounting which was recently applied to wages, is to be extended to government superannuation benefits which are payable to, or in relation to, former Commonwealth Government employees and Defence Force personnel. There are some cost saving measures which necessarily flow from this piece of legislation, and they are not insignificant. Indeed, over the course of 1986-87, which is not the full year, savings will amount to almost $13m for the Commonwealth, and during the course of the full year 1987-88 it is expected to result in savings to the Commonwealth of some $17.3m. This is by no means an insignificant piece of legislation and in terms of the Government's overall Budget strategy, which required zero real growth in outlays and a Budget deficit of $3.5 billion, this Bill forms a crucial part of that overall strategy. I make reference to some of those extraordinary economic circumstances which, as I have said, necessitated the Budget strategy by this Government-the zero real growth in outlays-and which has resulted in probably the second or third toughest Budget that Australia has experienced since the Second World War. That is why this legislation is necessary. I will just point to a few of those indicators. I think it is fairly well known throughout Australia that as a result of the downturn in export prices that Australia receives, our export income has been reduced by some billions of dollars and our standard of living has been effectively reduced by 2 per cent to 3 per cent. As a responsible government wanting to plan ahead for the future to give this economy the chance to adjust to those changed economic circumstances, we have brought down a Budget which gives effect to those economic conditions. I will give a few examples of what has happened to the price we receive for our traditional exports. Between 1981 and 1985 average coal export prices fell by around 28 per cent. Between 1980 and 1985 wheat prices fell by 27 per cent. Over the same five year period the price of wool fell by 22 per cent. In the last five years the price of iron ore fell by 26 per cent. The price of aluminium is down 26 per cent. The price of beef is down 24 per cent and the price of sugar is down 68 per cent. I could go on and on with that list. Basically what has occurred over this period, but particularly during the last year, is that the world is no longer prepared to pay us the price for the commodities and goods which we have traditionally exported. That has meant that our export income is much lower than it otherwise would be. It has meant that we are down the drain about $6 billion a year because those prices did not remain at a reasonable level and that means that our standard of living has fallen. When we came to frame the Budget-- Mr Tuckey —I raise on a point of order. I overheard points of order raised by Government members on the matter of relevance. They took a very, very fine point on the previous speaker when he gave an example of belt tightening. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Would the honourable member come to his point of order? Mr Tuckey —Certainly. The present speaker is talking about the price of iron ore and coal but he is talking to a Bill related to-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the honourable member will be seated, I will take that point. I had not caught the point of irrelevance but I will ask the honourable member for Bendigo to speak closely to the purpose of this Bill. Mr BRUMBY —I am endeavouring and will increase my endeavours to speak precisely to the Bill. I was simply making the point that in other economic circumstances, Bills of this type would be unnecessary. But given the dramatic fall in export income which has affected Australia, it has been necessary to bring in a tough Budget. This Bill is part of that tough Budget. Crucial to the economic framework we have established is a wage discount, which has already occurred, of 2 per cent for wage and salary earners. This legislation gives effect in the next 12 months to a 2 per cent discount in payments to Commonwealth superannuitant beneficiaries. We would argue very strongly that if it is fair for wage and salary earners to take a 2 per cent discount previously, and most likely a 2 per cent discount again in the future, it is only reasonable that beneficiaries of superannuation who have been Commonwealth employees should also share in the burden that the rest of the community is sharing in and accept a 2 per cent discount. In my view it would be absurd, indeed, extremely ironic, if someone remaining in the work force-for instance, a member of the Defence Force-in his or her occupation was to take a 2 per cent wage discount, yet a colleague who had recently retired on a pension and who was not working was getting a greater increase in their pension per week than the person remaining in work. I think that would be an absurd and a totally contradictory situation. This legislation has been introduced to ensure for that very good reason that that does not occur. The issue has been raised today as to why it is that a higher effective discount is being applied to the public sector. I just make these points: Over the years Commonwealth superannuation pensioners have benefited from indexation increases which have been generally in excess of salary movements in that sector. For instance, in 1961, 1963, 1967, and 1971 the Government financed portion of pensions was increased by the notional salary method, which provided for pension increases to be determined having regard to the updated level of a pensioner's retirement salary. When regular annual adjustments were introduced in 1973, pensions were increased by applying to the Government financed portion the formula of whichever was the lesser of 1.4 times the movement in the consumer price index or one times the movement in average weekly earnings. Since 1976 these pensions have been fully updated by one times the movement in the consumer price index. The Government financed portion of these pensions that have become payable since 1 July 1976 under the Superannuation Act of 1976 have been fully updated by movements in the CPI. Movements in the CPI, in fact, have been well in excess of increments in the level of public sector salaries. Between June 1976 and July 1986 pensions under the Superannuation Act 1922 increased by 171 per cent. It is an important statistic. Pensions under the Superannuation Act increased by 139 per cent. But by comparison-it is a very important comparison to make-the salary for a class 2/3 clerk in the Public Service in that time has increased by only 117 per cent. In other words, over the period in question in the last decade, the increases paid to Commonwealth superannuation beneficiaries have been well in excess of the salary increases paid to people who are in ordinary Public Service employment. The effect of this piece of legislation is that discounting will reduce the level of increase to 165 per cent in respect of pensions covered by the 1922 Act and to 135 per cent in respect of pensions covered by the 1976 Act. I understand that all of that sounds fairly technical but in simple terms it means that Commonwealth superannuation pensioners in fact have done very well from the indexation of pensions over the last decade. They have done far better than their counterparts who have remained in regular Public Service employment. When we come to 1986-87, where in the last year we have had a dramatic fall in our national income and a dramatic fall in our export income, and where wage and salary earners have been forced to take a 2 per cent reduction in wages, in all conscience how could a responsible government say that those who have retired from the Commonwealth Public Service should get full consumer price indexation of pensions whereas those remaining in work should only get the 7.2 per cent-2 per cent less. In all conscience one cannot do that. If a government takes a responsible position about this, if it is prepared to and knows that it has to make the tough right decisions in terms of Australia's long term future, this legislation is the only possible result that one can get from that scenario. For those reasons I strongly support the legislation. This legislation provides for superannuation and other benefits, so its embrace is fairly wide. The approach which has been adopted by this Government is a reasoned, gradual approach. It produces the necessary adjustments in our economy in a reasoned way over time. It is totally different from the approach which, presumably, would be adopted by a Liberal-National Party coalition if it were ever returned to government. The Opposition has suggested that it will oppose sections of this legislation. I have great difficulty coming to terms with its opposition to this legislation. If one looks at the Opposition's record in terms of benefits payable to people in our community, one sees that it is a deplorable record of slashing the living standards of people who depend on pensions and benefits. For instance, during the Fraser Government, of which the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) was the Treasurer, the additional pension for children fell by 35 per cent in real terms. The allowance for guardians fell by 34.7 per cent. The single adult unemployment benefit fell in real terms by 18.6 per cent, and the junior unemployment benefit fell by 45.6 per cent. When we talk about a 2 per cent discount to superannuation beneficiaries, bearing in mind that wage earners have already taken a 2 per cent discount, we have to take the opposition by the Liberal and National parties to this legislation with a grain of salt. We should look a little further at what they might do in the future. I am sure that all honourable members would recall the middle of last year when the President of the Liberal Party of Australia, Mr John Valder, advocated in his widely circulated video, the so-called Westpac video, huge cuts in social security benefits. More recently-and this is the great contradiction in the Liberal Party-the same John Valder was advocating big rises in pay for politicians. So there is a conflict. What about some of the other views of the Opposition on social security and benefits? The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honour-able member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown), has been particularly vocal. He said that the Opposition would simply abolish benefits for the long term unemployed if it got into power. That is a remarkable assertion. Even with the dramatic job growth that has occurred under this Government, there are still about 15 applicants for every job vacancy. So I do not know what a long term unemployment beneficiary would do-- Mr Connolly —I take a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I draw attention to the question of relevance yet again. The speaker is ranging very widely. The Opposition has been more than generous. Madam Deputy Speaker, I think you should ask the honourable member to come back to the point. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) -I take the point of order. I ask the honourable member for Bendigo to speak to the matter to hand. Mr BRUMBY —In response to the point of order and in full deference to your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, I point out that the Bill we are debating is for an Act to amend certain Acts and regulations relating to superannuation and similar benefits and for related purposes. It is a Budget Bill. With due respect, the embrace of the Bill is very wide indeed. It relates to superannuation, to benefits and to other related pur- poses. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Certainly it is a wide-ranging Bill, but I ask the honourable member not to range too broadly in his comments, to keep them pertinent to the matters before the House. Mr BRUMBY —I shall take very close note of your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. Another claim which has been made during this debate and which was made in the media preceding it by the Opposition is that veterans' repatriation benefits may be in some way affected by this legislation and that this is the thin end of the wedge. No repatriation beneficiary will be affected by this legislation. The legislation provides for a 2 per cent discount for superannuitants. If one looks at this Government's record in terms of those who have served defending their country in the defence forces in World War I, World War II, Korea and Vietnam, one will find that it has done more than any other government to ensure that the wonderful contribution those people have made to this country is recognised fully. This Budget allocates $3.8 billion to the Veterans' Affairs portfolio. When we came to government in 1982-83, the allocation was $2.3 billion. We have virtually doubled in money terms the amount we are providing to veterans who have served this country. Let me give an example of the type of benefits this Government has afforded those who served in the defence services supporting this country. In Bendigo recently I was able to launch the veterans' home services program, for which almost $40,000 has been allocated by the Hawke Labor Government. The program will provide tremendous benefits for frail and aged repatriation beneficiaries who cannot get out of their homes and who need assistance with things such as shopping and spring cleaning, a sitter and respite service, social contact and so on. This is an excellent service and an example of what we are doing to assist people who have served their country in times of need. I repeat: This Bill is an important part of overall Budget strategy. It will result in savings of $17m in a full year, which is not insignificant. The Bill is part of a Budget with a deficit reduced to $3.5 billion, which is only 1.4 per cent of gross domestic product. That is better than Malcolm Fraser did in most of his years as Prime Minister. It is part of a Budget which reflects the fact that our living standards have fallen because of the dramatic and tragic fall in export prices for our coal, wheat, wool, beef and so on. To argue, as the Opposition does, that superannuitants are being unfairly treated by this legislation is to ignore the fact that wage and salary earners throughout the community have already accepted a 2 per cent wage discount and are likely to have to accept a further 2 per cent wage discount in the future. It would be absurd in the extreme to say that an individual remaining in work should have to take a 2 per cent discount but that one of his or her colleagues who left the day before and took a retirement pension should receive full indexation. I strongly support the legislation. It is a vital part of the Government's overall Budget strategy. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(5.18) —The honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby), who has just treated the House to a long dissertation of the various elements of the Government's policies and why the Government needs to cut back expenditure, has missed the most salient fact of all. One of the key reasons why we are in our current difficult economic situation is that over four Budgets, despite the rapid economic improvement which took place after the breaking of the drought, and especially in the first two years of this Government as a result of the success of the Fraser Government's wage freeze, the breaking of the drought and a general improvement in our international terms of trade-elements which should have given the Government the opportunity to establish a sound economic base-no advantage was taken of those elements; so the opposite situation now prevails. Not only do we have a Treasurer (Mr Keating) who talks about the country being a banana republic and a Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) who talks about us being in a state of war in economic terms; we have now had to listen to the honourable member for Bendigo suggesting that this legislation is essentially `insignificant'-his word-in the context of the Government's budgetary policy. The honourable member for Bendigo and all Government members would do well to take heed of my words. Superannuitants, whether through the Defence Force retirement and death benefits program or through the Australian Public Service superannuation scheme, do not regard this legislation in any sense as insignificant. The Opposition accepts the need for all sections of the community to be prepared to tighten their belts, but this Government, particularly the Treasurer, is unable to set an appropriate example. Today in Question Time we saw how, time after time, the issue of the Treasurer's allowances was raised- Mr Brumby —I take a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This issue was raised a number of times before you took the chair. The Deputy Speaker then in the chair ruled that the matter was not pertinent to the debate. I fail to see how the question of travelling allowances, which are decided by the Remuneration Tribunal, has anything to do with the payment of Commonwealth superannuation pensions. I respectfully suggest that the honourable member is completely out of order. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) -The honourable member for Bradfield is out of order, and, I point out, not just in terms of relevance. No member of this House can criticise another member's actions without putting forward a substantive motion to give honourable members an opportunity to vote on it. Therefore I direct the honourable member for Bradfield not to bring up a matter involving specific criticisms of a member of this House again. Mr CONNOLLY —Madam Deputy Speaker, the words in the Budget, if I may paraphrase them, are to the effect that the burden of sacrifice must be spread equally throughout the community. I do not know of any place in the Standing Orders-if I am incorrect, I trust that you will bring it to my attention-where it is suggested that, in the context of debate, a member is forbidden the opportunity of drawing the attention of the House and the Australian people to examples of grotesque inconsistency in the Government's approach to the very policies that it is trying to apply to the Australian people. If in that context I have to mention the Treasurer, so be it. That is the reality. The record stands with those words. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Bradfield is deficient in his understanding of the Standing Orders on the point which I brought up. I repeat my ruling that no honourable member may criticise the actions of another honourable member without putting forward a substantive motion to that effect. I ask the honourable member to heed that ruling. Mr CONNOLLY —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The essential ingredients of the legislation turn around two elements: Firstly, its impact on the Defence Force retirement benefits arrangements and, secondly, on the Public Service superannuation scheme. The Defence Force retirement and death benefits scheme has for many years been one of the key elements which have made service in the Australian armed forces a career worthy of this nation and of the people who have contributed to it. It is an unfortunate fact that the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes), when he was the defence spokesman for the then Opposition in 1983, gave a commitment that a Labor government would not cut the DFRB or DFRDB schemes. Since then, on no fewer than two occasions, fundamental changes have been made that will affect not only future recruitment to the armed Services but also, in a very real sense, those who have given their service to Australia and who have now retired and are, therefore, the least able in our community to defend their interests. Because of that, the Opposition believes that it is our prime responsibility to bring home to this House and to the Government that the way upon which it has entered into this set of arrangements leaves very much to be desired. I thought that in a Labor administration we had a government which believed in conciliation, arbitration, in taking through issues and in trying to seek consensus, which is the Prime Minister's favourite word. I find it extraordinary that the Treasurer in his Budget Statement simply put it down as holy writ that the 2 per cent deduction in pensions would take place, irrespective of the fact that it is the responsibility of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to make those determinations. The virtue of that system-it is a virtue that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) tries to espouse time after time in this House-is that it gives all parties the opportunity to put forward their point of view. The fact of the matter is that no organisation, least of all the Federal Executive of the Armed Forces Federation of Australia or, to the best of my knowledge, the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association, the Professional Officers Association and any union concerned with Public Service, has been given any opportunity to discuss this matter in advance of the budgetary decision or in the context of the conciliation and arbitration discussions which would normally precede a decision taken by the Commission to vary or reduce, wages and benefits by 2 per cent across the board, as proposed by the Government. In the armed forces context, the Government is saying that it wants to see the pension of returned service men and women, people who have given their service to Australia, reduced by $161.54 this year. That cost will compound to $2,031 over 10 years. That is calculated on a very generous basis-the assumption of a mere 5 per cent inflation rate. Since we have had nowhere near that rate in the four years of Labor Government, one could safely assume that while this Government remains in power the level of real loss of income to the DFRDB contributions-will be greater. I emphasise the word `contributors'; it is a contributory scheme and the benefits have accrued from the contributions made over a quarter of a century by men and women who have helped finance this procedure as a means of ensuring some independence in retirement. There is nothing more damaging to any retiree under any scheme than not to know the basis upon which he can plan for his future. I do not think that is an unreasonable objective. I hope that all honourable members share it. However, the way in which the Government has gone about these amendments demonstrates yet again the fundamental weakness in taking one element of a problem and trying to shave costs and ignoring the others. I trust that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), who is at the table and who has a wide knowledge of defence matters, would be aware that it costs some $1m to train an Air Force pilot. Yet in this grand gesture of cost saving by the Treasurer, in the context of the DFRDB proposals, the savings will be $4.7m in 1986-87 and $6.3m in 1987-88. I add that, in the context of the Public Service superannuation changes, the savings will be $7.9m in 1986-87 and $11m in 1987-88. That is on the basis of the 2 per cent discount. The point I wish to make is this: When our Services are definitely being bled, especially of their officer cadre, it seems pathetic in the extreme for the Government to say, with a great beating of its breast, that it is saving a miserable $4.7m when, as I said earlier, it costs $1m to train one pilot. In the past seven months there have been in excess of 562 male officer resignations. That applies to all three Services-the Navy, the Army and the Air Force. By any stretch of the imagination, the total cost of training 562 officers would be nothing less than $200m. Yet we see, gradually, perceptively and deliberately, a consistent eating away and a reduction in the conditions of service and the fringe benefits of the men and women who contribute to Australia's defence in our armed services. It is great in times of peace for a democracy-as was the case in years past, and the years between 1918 and 1939 were no exception-to denigrate those men and women who have made that contribution. Something divides them from the rest of us, and it is simply this: In their decision to join the armed forces, they, in every sense of the term, put their lives on the line for our defence, to protect our freedom. Here we have a government turning on those people who have given their service, and retired or are about to retire from the armed forces, and saying: `Thank you very much. We do not want you any more. We are now going to reduce your benefits, and we do not really care whether those benefits are so low that you then have to take the old age pension'. The same principle applies to the Commonwealth superannuation scheme. I wonder how many members of this omniscient Government which knows so little about so much realise that, whereas it is general folklore that the Commonwealth superannuation scheme is massively generous and better than anybody else's, 61.35 per cent of all retirees from the Commonwealth Public Service receive benefits through their pension scheme which are so low that they automatically qualify for some or all of the age pension. I simply put it to the Government-because I honestly believe that it has not examined this fact-that proposal is simply increasing the number of superannuitants, whether it be under the DFRDB scheme or the Commonwealth superannuation scheme, who will qualify for the age pension. I hope the Minister at the table, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), is an expert in such matters and can answer all these issues, whether with the advice of his experts or otherwise. I ask him seriously to tell the House whether, in the calculation of the alleged savings-I emphasise them again-approximately $4.7m in 1986-87 for the DFRDB and $7.9m for the same period for the Commonwealth superannuation scheme, the Department of Finance advised Ministers as to what the flow-on effect would be of going down this road, which would simply enable those at the bottom end of the pension, whether Commonwealth superannuation or DFRDB, to qualify for access to the old age pension because they have broken through the minimum income level. In 1985-86, pension ceases to be paid when income reaches $218.60 per week or $11,367.20 per annum. I seek the leave of the House to have included in Hansard table 18 from the Commonwealth superannuation scheme report for last year, which sets out these details. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Mr CONNOLLY —These statistics bear out clearly the errors which can be created by a government which is not prepared to look both vertically and laterally at the impact of its decisions. The most fundamental thing is that this Government has not had the courage in the last Budget to say to the Australian people: `We are going to reduce significantly all old age pensions by 2 per cent'. But by its action today, by bringing to this House legislation which is going to hurt those least able to defend themselves, whether they be pensioners under the Defence Force retirement benefits scheme or under the Commonwealth superannuation scheme, millions of pensioners throughout Australia will be saying: `I wonder whether we can trust this Government again. Are we going to be the next people whose benefits will be cut, allegedly to save money?'. We are facing a government which, through its duplicity, and especially the duplicity of its Treasurer, has demonstrated that we have one law for the people and another law for members of the Labor Party. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Page)(5.35) —I rise to strongly support the Opposition's amendment in relation to the Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Bill. The amendment proposes that the concern of the House be expressed at the Government's decision to alter the level of and to discount the Defence Force retirement benefits and the Defence Force retirement and death benefits before there is a proper determination in matters of this kind and before a national wage case has considered the proposal for a 2 per cent discounting in wages. The Bill imposes on superannuitants a burden greater than that being proposed for the community generally. Of course, it will come into effect before the issue of the equivalent discounting of wages is given consideration. I believe that the case put this afternoon by the Government, and put very weakly by two back benchers-the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) and the honourable member for Banks (Mr Mountford)-obviously in the absence of any strong proposition by Government Ministers, reveals that this is just another attempt by stealth, through this Budget, to cut away from people their real rights. When we consider the position of superannuitants in the various categories, but particularly in the defence forces, we find that it is nothing more or less than the implementation by this Government of a philosophy to take away from the prudent section of the community with the express purpose, as indicated by those Government back benchers, of giving more to the less prudent sections of the community. I in no way suggest that the needy pensioner or the needy person in the welfare area should be deprived of any form of benefit, particularly not those who come well below the poverty line. But here we have a different issue entirely. This issue is one of the realities, and the reality on this score is that of breaking a promise-a promise made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) back in 1983-that there would be no cuts in superannuation and no cuts in benefits for the members of the defence forces and that the Government would look after their interests. Mr Adermann —Yes, they broke that promise. Mr IAN ROBINSON —They have not done it. As the honourable member for Fairfax has said, they have broken that promise and they are proceeding to break more and more promises. The diabolical factor in all of this-it is apparently one about which the Government is not the least bit concerned-is the fall in the strength of the armed Services. The resignations referred to by Opposition speakers this afternoon show clearly that the defence Services are suffering severely because of the lack of incentive for those who would want to serve in any of the branches of the armed Services. Mr Adermann —Destroying their morale. Mr IAN ROBINSON —The honourable member for Fairfax is dead right. It is destroying their morale. That morale is absolutely essential if we are to maintain at a reasonable strength the personnel required for an effective defence policy and for an effective armed service in this country, in whichever branch it happens to be. What is not being admitted by the Government in this debate is simply that part of the reward promised to those who entered the Services, when they sought to enlist, was that they would receive certain benefits. This is one of those benefits. The Government is quickly endeavouring to chisel away at these benefits, because it does not have an interest in the maintenance of an effective armed service for this country. The Government's acceptance of the report of the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities, in fact its attitude on the whole question of defence, is such that this measure is clearly much more a matter of philosophy than a matter of Budget strategy. The amount that is being saved in this legislation is very small. In regard to total Budget outlays, these alterations will reduce the Government's commitment in this financial year by only $12.6m and in the next financial year by $17.3m-a very small amount indeed. But its effect on beneficiaries and on the morale of those in the various Services is quite different. Of course, the effect is demonstrable. Let us compare it to the circumstances that exist either in the private sector or in other sectors of government. By chiselling away at this particular element we are discouraging those who have as their objective, as part of the maintenance of their role, a degree of self-reliance in the future. When they see that self-reliance disappearing, what do they do? They look at their personal situation and say `Is it worth it?' and they opt to leave. This legislation gives a further impetus to the fall-off in those areas of defence which are so important to this nation and which will be increasingly important in the years ahead. The honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) emphasised this point. He is one who has had vast experience in this field. He pointed out very effectively this afternoon the dire consequences of this kind of reduction in recognition of service to the country, whether it be in the Public Service or in the defence forces. What has been lost sight of, undoubtedly, is that by reducing the benefits we merely push many of these people further into the area of social welfare. This, I believe, is a tragic approach by any government that wants to encourage people to have greater reliance on their own resources in their retirement. If there is to be a trend in this direction, let us think of the consequences. It means that people will say: `Is it worth while to contribute to a superannuation fund? Is it worth while to try to provide for one's retirement?'. The answer, obviously, is that, if this is to be the Government's policy in future and if this is a lead towards its attitudes, it is contrary even to trade union policy. I do not know what the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford), who represents the Minister for Finance and who is at the table, will tell us about that. But on the one hand we have a very great demand from the trade union movement for an expansion of superannuation, for an all-embracing system of superannuation in this country, and, on the other, in this case we are reducing a genuine, proper and sensibly based superannuation provision. I am amazed that the honourable member for Bendigo this afternoon could cite percentage bases when making comparisons about existing benefits. In other words, he put to this House that, even with the cut in superannuation benefit, there were still people on full salaries who, in percentage terms, were receiving less. What utter humbug! What rubbish! It is rubbish because one cannot refer to percentages when one makes that comparison. Of course, on a percentage basis, there would be people receiving lower salaries. Is that any surprise? Mr Hollis —Don't ask me. I didn't make the speech. Mr IAN ROBINSON —The honourable member is the only Government back bencher in the House at the moment who can back up his colleague. There are two Ministers at the table. I do not know whether we will hear from them, but I hope that we will hear from one of them. Mr McGauran —It was typical of the honourable member for Bendigo. Mr IAN ROBINSON —Obviously, the honourable member for Bendigo is an academic. At least, he expresses, on behalf of his back bench colleagues, an academic attitude on all matters on which he speaks. His attitude this afternoon was certainly academic, because the comparisons he made just do not hold water. If one uses merely the percentage approach, quite obviously one is fooling people who deserve a better coverage of information from the Government about what is actually being done. We know that the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, in his second reading speech, indicated to us that this measure was being implemented on the premise that because the automatic increases in superannuation were based on certain weighted averages-on the average consumer price index for the six capital cities-it was pretty generous. But let us look at the real facts. We are talking about an increase, that would have applied, in an average superannuation situation, of about $962 a year. This proposal cuts that amount back to $753 a year, which represents $4 a week. If one relates that to present day living costs-and that is the issue-$4 a week is a very substantial erosion of benefit for those people who are receiving a superannuation benefit. It is sheer humbug for honourable members to compare it on a percentage basis with actual wages, simply because wages run at a very much higher level than does superannuation, and understandably so. Superannuation, in the main, is a retirement benefit. Let us turn to one other aspect that has not been mentioned much in this debate. I draw the attention of the House to what this Government has done to superannuation generally since it came to office, despite its promises in 1983. I refer to the determinations for commutation, which very greatly reduced the rights of the individual, and the introduction of hefty tax on superannuation. We are now dealing with a reduction in the superannuation levels. So what is the Government's intention? There is no doubt as to what its intention is. It would rather see everyone on social welfare, and have no superannuation schemes or have superannuation schemes that merely equate with social welfare. That, surely, destroys every incentive and initiative and is an appalling approach by any government, let alone a neo-socialist government of the sort that is occupying the treasury bench at present. In conclusion, I remind the House that the amendment moved by the Opposition to the motion for the second reading is that the Opposition, whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, expresses great concern at the way in which this measure has been introduced, the basis that has been applied for its introduction, and the decision not to allow a proper approach by way of reference to the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal before making the determination. I hope that the community will recognise how shabbily superannuitants have been treated by this Government. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(5.50) —In closing the debate on the second reading, I want to thank all the members who have taken part. Some, of course, made more worthwhile contributions than others. The Government rejects the second reading amendment from the Opposition for a number of very good reasons. The first part of the amendment reads: The House- (1) expresses its concern that the level of discounting of superannuation . . . imposed by the legislation has not yet been proposed in a National Wage Case, let alone given effect by a decision of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair), who I understand led for the Opposition-I apologise that I was not able to be here at the time-apparently made some reference to page 10 of the Budget Speech and quoted the part that states: . . . the Government will argue to the Arbitration Commission that the proposed increase in wages be cut by 2 per cent. The honourable member then claimed that in my second reading speech I refused to refer to the 2 per cent discount recently applied to wages. Of course I referred to that discount. The amendment and the argument of the honourable member are built on a misconception. We are talking about the 2 per cent discount that has already applied. As I said in my second reading speech, on 26 June, in the national wage case decision brought down on that day, a 2.3 per cent increase was granted in relation to the September and December 1985 consumer price index increase of 4.3 per cent. The 2.3 per cent increase applied from the first pay in July 1986. The difference between the 4.3 per cent which would otherwise have applied and the 2.3 per cent that applied was the 2 per cent, which is the rationale for what is taking place now. The amendment is, of course, nonsense. It is built on a misconception. Superannuation fund pensioners received automatically a 9.2 per cent increase based on indexation on 3 July 1986 in respect of the April 1985 and March 1986 increases in the CPI. To introduce equity, the Bill is applying a 2 per cent discount. I draw attention to another part of the Opposition's misconceived amendment, which reads: (a) the Bill imposes on Commonwealth superannuitants, without consultation, a burden greater than that proposed for the community generally. It does not. As I have explained, the community generally has already had the 2 per cent discount to indexation applied to general wages. There is no inequity in what is being proposed. The honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) made a comment to which I want to refer. He said that members of the defence forces have been required to pay in 5.5 per cent of their salary over a number of years and that now their benefits are being reduced. He seemed to assume that the 5.5 per cent of their salaries covered the benefits that they received. The contributions based on 5.5 per cent of salaries which were paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund in 1984-85, for instance, totalled about $84.5m. All benefits under both schemes are paid from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and in 1984-85 they comprised about $732m. What a great difference from the sum of the 5.5 per cent contributions. Members' contributions do not subsidise, so to speak, the annual indexation of pension payments. Members who retire without a pension entitlement, for example, receive a refund of their 5.5 per cent contributions. The cost of indexed pension increases is borne by the government of the day, and this Government has not abrogated its responsibilities under the various Acts that provide for an annual increase in Defence Force retirement pensions, but in the current economic climate the rate of pension increase cannot be sustained. For the sake of equity, too, it has been necessary to apply the 2 per cent discount. Most Australians understand the concept of equity, and that applies to those who have retired. These are people who have given their services in the Defence Force and elsewhere and who are beneficiaries of the fund. They will not be making the sort of fuss that the Opposition is making. As I have said, the amendment is a nonsense. The same can be said of the honourable member for Page (Mr Ian Robinson), who seemed to see some need to suggest that the Bill is in conflict with the Government's desire to extend superannuation. There is no conflict at all. It is a tragedy that for so many years we have had so few people benefiting from retirement benefit funds. The Government has a keen desire to ensure that superannuation is extended to lower income group people in the community who presently do not have this benefit. Even though the times are difficult ones economically, with a reduction in the prices of our exports being imposed from outside the country-these problems are not in any way due to government policy-we are not putting aside our objectives. We wish to ensure that proper retirement benefits go to those who deserve them. The Bill is not in conflict with the Government's desire to extend superannuation. It is a measure which is bringing equity in benefits in line with the 2 per cent discount in respect of wages that has applied to the rest of the community. I commend the Bill to the House. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Sinclair's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 49 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Kent, L. Beddall, D. P. Keogh, L. J. Bilney, G. N. Kerin, J. C. Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E. Bowen, Lionel Lamb, A. H. Brown, John Langmore, J. V. Brown, Robert Lee, M. Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J. Campbell, G. McHugh, J. Charles, D. E. Maher, M. J. Charlesworth, R. I. Martin, S. P. Chynoweth, R. L. Mayer, H. Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B. Cross, M. D. Milton, P. Cunningham,. B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDubois, S. G. Mountford, J. G. Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P. Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T. Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S. Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gayler, J. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gear, G. Simmons, D. W. Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H. Grace, E. L. Theophanous, A. C. Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. Uren, T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Hurford, C. J. Willis, R. Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W. Jenkins, H. A. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B. Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S. Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J. Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T. Cameron, Donald Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Ewen Miles, C. G. Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C. Cobb, M. R. Nehl, G. B. Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R. Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K. Conquest, B. J. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C. Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M. Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J. Edwards, Harry Slipper, P. N. Everingham, P. A. E. Spender, J. M. Fife, W. C. Sullivan, K. J. Fischer, Tim Tuckey, C. W. Fisher, Peter Watson, D. J. H. Hall, Steele Webster, A. P. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D. Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Hunt, R. J. D. Free, R. V. Halverson, R. G. Staples, P. R. Shipton, R. F. Kelly, R. J. Hawker, D. P. M. Griffiths, A. G. Moore, J. C. Dawkins, J. S. Katter, R. C. Humphreys, B. C. Cameron, IanCleeland, P. R. Shack, P. D. Hayden, W. G. Downer, A. J. G. Jacobi, R. Goodluck, B. G. Punch, G. F. Braithwaite, R. A. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Hurford) read a third time. Debate resumed from 20 August, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(6.05) —The Bill before us is the Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill 1986. Its purpose is to reduce the amount of Federal road finance for 1986-87 by $50m to $1,245m. This will be achieved by reducing the hypothecated excise on petrol and diesel fuel by 0.235c per litre, which in turn will reduce the amount to be retained in the Australian Land Transport Program Trust Fund and thus to be available for expenditure on the nation's roads. The Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) revealed this bad news in June, but the road construction industry, State and local governments, automobile associations and others can be forgiven for being confused, because since then there has been a further reduction, in the Budget, of $24m. The result for 1986-87-and I presume we can accept that there will be no further reductions-is the dismal figure of $1,245m allocated for the nation's roads, which is the same level in current or nominal terms for the third year in succession. It brings with it an equally dismal record for this Government, because for only the second time in the 11 years during which the Australian Automobile Association chart has provided figures on this, and for which I will seek incorporation in Hansard later, there has been no increase in nominal or current dollar terms for Federal road expenditure. Both of those years were during the term of this Australian Labor Party Government-that is, last year and this year. To understand fully both what this $74m reduction in Federal road finance means to the level of road construction and maintenance and what it does to the incorrect but nevertheless persistent bombast of the Government in relation to its priorities for road expenditure, I shall quote from the Minister's second reading speech on the Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Bill 1985. I want to highlight some of the arrogance-which I think must now be obvious to everyone and which we tried to show last year-of the Government. The Minister said: The Bill now before the House will be the foundation upon which our overall approach to transport will be based. It provides a use related basis for determining Federal expenditure on land transport systems. Furthermore the arrangements incorporate an automatic adjustment to match future inflationary movements as measured by the consumer price index. It guarantees the continuity of the greatest road building program in Australia's history, which has been progressively implemented during our two years of government. Together with the Australian Bicentennial Road Development-ABRD-program, federal expenditure on roads will total $1,245m in 1985-86. Later he stated: The Bill establishes a trust fund, which will operate on a similar basis to the ABRD Trust Fund. It provides that an indexed share of the existing excise charge on motor spirit and diesel fuel will be paid into the ALTP Trust Fund based on collections from 1 July 1985 until 30 June 1990. He further stated: The future level of expenditure under ALTP will depend upon the following two factors: -The rate of consumption of motor spirit and diesel which is the best measure of road use-and the rate of movements in the Consumer Price Index to maintain the ALTP excise component in real terms. . . . . . . Specifically in this Bill we have the fulfilment of this Government's long standing policy commitment to the improvement of our nation's road system-a system which under conservative governments was starved of essential investment funds. What an arrogance that is when we see what is actually being spent by this Government on the nation's roads. What is the real position with this Government's level of expenditure? There are two ways of determining whether the Federal Government is giving adequate priority to road expenditure. The first is based on excise, that is, the percentage of fuel excise or, for that matter, total Federal fuel taxes-both the excise and the levy-allocated to roads. I believe that this comparison is unreliable because there are, as we are now finding almost daily, considerable variations depending on the import parity price which, in turn, alters the crude oil levy and the excise relationship. Also, it is does not recognise the legitimate right of a Federal government to tax fuel to an acceptable degree as part of that government's income requirement. However, I agree with those who criticise the excessive level of taxation, which amounts to about 9 per cent of total Commonwealth income, when in this current year only about 16 1/2 per cent of that amount will be spent on our roads. Let us compare that figure with the high point of over 21 per cent in 1983-84, the first full year of the initiation of the Australian bicentennial road development program by the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) on behalf of the coalition Government. The Australian Automobile Association uses the second form of comparison, that is, the percentage of total government expenditure allocated to roads. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table supplied by the Australian Automobile Association. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Australian Automobile Association Figures COMMONWEALTH ROAD FUNDING AS A PROPORTION OF TOTAL COMMONWEALTH BUDGET OUTLAYS-1976-77 TO 1986-87 ($ Million) Year Road Grants/ ALTP ABRD Total funding % increase Total outlays Road grants % outlays Total funding % outlays 1976-77... 434 . . 434 0.0 24,023 1.80 1.80 1977-78... 478 . . 478 10.1 26,664 1.79 1.79 1978-79... 508 . . 508 6.3 28,911 1.76 1.76 1979-80... 565 . . 565 11.2 31,444 1.80 1.80 1980-81... 628 . . 628 11.2 35,994 1.74 1.74 1981-82... 685 . . 685 9.1 41,188 1.66 1.66 1982-83... 734 117 851 24.2 48,792 1.50 1.74 1983-84... 778 417 1195 40.4 56,430 1.38 2.12 1984-85... 828 417 1245 4.2 63,712 1.30 1.95 1985-86... 805 440 1245 0.0 69,917 1.15 1.78 1986-87... 805 440 1245 0.0 74,764 1.08 1.67 Mr LLOYD —The three important columns in that 11-year table indicate, first of all, total funding or total Federal expenditure on roads; secondly, the total Budget outlays or expenditure; and, thirdly,-the right hand column-the percentage of total Federal government expenditure which is actually allocated to roads. For example, in 1976-77 the percentage of total Commonwealth funding was 1.80 per cent, and the level was the same in 1979-80. The low point was in 1981-82, when the percentage was 1.66 per cent. Funding then climbed rapidly with the introduction of the bicentennial road development program. It reached its peak of 2.12 per cent in 1983-84, the first full impact year of the 2c per litre levy. I remind everyone present that the ABRD program was introduced in 1982 by the honourable member for Gwydir on behalf of the coalition Government. In 1982-83 the levy was 1c per litre and in 1983-84 it was 2c per litre. I also remind everyone that the levy was opposed by the Australian Labor Party at that time. However, since then, in government, the Labor Party has been very quick in its Press statements and speeches to claim the credit for the beneficial effects of the ABRD program on our road finances. The Labor Government has not just been content with accepting the credit for the ABRD program which it initially opposed; it indexed that 2c per litre levy and has paid all of that indexed portion into Consolidated Revenue. Over the five-year period of the bicentennial road program, over $500m of what should be money for Australia's roads is disappearing completely into Consolidated Revenue. The Government and the Minister love to boast how they have given such a high priority to road finance in their Budgets. To make that point, I refer to the Minister's second reading speech. The Government always cites the figure for 1981-82, the last full year of the coalition Government. The Australian Automobile Association table confirms that low point. Let us look at the situation over five Labor Budgets. For a start the figure given for funding in 1981-82 is always wrong because the figure for the last coalition Budget-1982-83-is far higher. Labor has falsely claimed the credit for the 1982-83 funding level. The first full year of the 2c per litre levy, the high point of Federal road finance, was 1983-84. Once again it flowed automatically from the coalition Government initiative. In 1984-85 there was a funding reduction in real terms of several per cent. In 1985-86 the $1,245m funding level, the figure for the previous year, was retained. Therefore the reduction in real terms is the full extent of inflation for that year. In 1986-87, the current year, the funding level of $1,245m has been retained, once again bearing the full reduction of inflation for the year. The three Budgets that have on them the imprint of Labor-1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87-indicate a fall of about 20 per cent in real terms in finance allocated by this Government for road expenditure and maintenance around Australia. That is the real story of what this Government is doing for road finance in this country. The Minister and the Government have been fond of citing in all their Press releases an 82 per cent funding increase in nominal terms since 1981-82. I know that the Government can still use the 1981-82 figure because the Automobile Association table indicates that 1.67 per cent of total government expenditure in 1986-87, compared with 1.66 per cent in 1981-82, will be allocated to roads. However, I caution it against that because the Federal Budget deficit will certainly blow out far beyond the guesstimate of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) of a little over $3.5 million. Put another way, expenditure for this financial year will be far greater than $74,764 million, and that is the figure on which the Automobile Association table is based. We have only to remember 1985-86 when final Government expenditure was over $800m more than the original guesstimate. The Government has to increase its expenditure by only $236m to $75 billion to reduce that percentage to the same as it was in 1981-82. To get the figure down to 1.65 per cent, which would be the lowest level of Federal expenditure in the 11 years covered by the Automobile Association table, total expenditure has to increase by only an additional $690m. I again remind honourable members that the deficit blow-out last year was over $800m. Even looking at those figures is being kind to this Government because the calculations do not include ALTP finance, which can be diverted from road expenditure at the request of the States to interstate mainline rail upgrading, and I would be interested to hear from the Minister what is happening in that respect. There is also the uncertainty of further amendments being introduced in the mini-Budget next year, and for that matter, next year's Budget. There is the uncertainty of what to expect in real money terms for road finance in the years ahead. That does not even include one other aspect of uncertainty: The phoney accounting of a $24m reduction in this year's Budget. That $24m is additional to the $50m which we are specifically referring to and is money that is being collected this year from the motorists. It is collected as excise and paid into the ALTP trust fund. It is not being allocated for the much needed expenditure on our roads; it is being kept in the trust fund to artificially reduce the deficit. I return to the earlier point of fuel taxation versus government revenue versus road finance. The Industries Assistance Commission inquiry into Certain Petroleum Products, which is still in progress, is of considerable interest. The second draft report was released in August. It was released ahead of the Budget. But that second draft report is dramatically different to the first draft report which was released earlier in the year. The second report recognises the deliberate Government policy of breaking the import parity price policy by taxing the difference. In other words, instead of the motorists benefiting from the reduced world price of crude oil the Government pocketed the difference. Mr Beale —Did it give it back when the price went back up? Mr LLOYD —It did not. In fact, it made it worse. The House will recall that in the Budget it increased the levy by a further 3c a litre. It just compounded the problem. The IAC is highlighting, to those who read these reports, that this Government is now using fuel as the most direct source of revenue that any government ever has to overcome its budgetary deficit problems. The IAC concluded that the excise on petrol and diesel is too high, and that it is unfair in its impact. I certainly agree with both those points. One has to consider how country people need to rely on fuel for the greater distances, for freight, et cetera. All road users-indeed anyone who is in an export industry-have the added burden of the relatively high price of fuel for use on farms and in other industries in relation to many of our competitors. The IAC in its draft summary recommended: As discussed in chapter 6, and as suggested by a number of participants at the first draft report hearing, a broadening of the commodity tax base by introduction of a Broad Based Consumption Tax (BBCT) or a Value Added Tax (VAT) would be expected to have a number of benefits. In particular, as discussed in the Draft White Paper on reform of Australia's tax system, such taxes would have the ability to relieve the burden on the income tax system. In addition they would provide scope to reduce petroleum excises. The Draft White Paper proposed a BBCT at a rate of 12 1/2 per cent. A further $2 billion would be raised by increasing this rate to 15 per cent. This would be sufficient to allow the excise rate on petrol, diesel and aviation fuel to fall to a level more comparable to other products in the economy. We must seriously consider that IAC recommendation. I would be very surprised if in its final report it moved in any substantial way from its recommendation of the introduction of a broad-based consumption tax in which fuel is taxed at the same rate as other products and services and not at the punitive rate which it has become in this country, and that specific road user charges be levied, but that all the income derived from those specific road user charges-there are a number of ways in which such charges could be made-would be allocated for the construction and maintenance of this nation's roads. The total cost of the tax and the specific road user charge would be less than current fuel taxes. In addition to the Labor Government's failure to maintain Federal road finance in real terms and the prospect of a continuing and accelerating decline between now and the next election and the end of the ABRD program in 1988, we pose a serious question: What happens after 1988 when the ABRD program and its 2c a litre levy ends? The ABRD now constitutes over one-third of Federal road finance. It is imperative that Federal road expenditure be maintained either by an extension of the ABRD program or by a combined ALTP and ABRD program which in total will maintain the level of road finance for the nation's roads and, what is more, guarantee that that level be maintained, unlike the very uncertain situation this Government has created. Mr McGauran —It is certain in one way-that the road funds will be decreased over the years. Mr LLOYD —The honourable member for Gippsland makes a very relevant and important point on behalf of the rural electorate, that fuel taxes, in total, must be lowered over a number of years but that expenditure must be maintained. At present, the coalition is studying the best way to achieve this end. I make this point for the Minister: The coalition parties are once again committed to the continuation of specific road grants for Federal road finance. The Opposition's concern over the Government's failure to maintain the nation's roads has caused the Opposition to consider an amendment. I move: 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 its disgraceful neglect of the nation's roads by- (1) being responsible for a dramatic fall in Federal expenditure in real terms since 1983-84 from 2.12 per cent of total budget outlays to 1.95 per cent in 1984-85, and 1.78 per cent in 1985-86 and an estimated 1.67 per cent this financial year, as measured by the Australian Automobile Association; (2) retaining Federal expenditure on roads at the same nominal level at $1,245m for the third year in succession; (3) creating the dismal record of being responsible for the only 2 years since 1976-77 of not increasing Federal road expenditure in nominal terms; (4) reducing the allocation to roads while at the same time increasing fuel excise tax by over 300 per cent in 3 years of Government; (5) artificially reducing the budget deficit by $24m and depriving the Australian Land Transport Program (ALTP) of this much needed finance, which has already been collected and allocated from fuel excise tax, and (6) generally abusing the trust fund principle for the ALTP and the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund to cover the reduction in the Government's budgetary commitment to roads'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Beale —I second the amendment. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(8.00) —I am pleased to speak on this important legislation put forward by the Government. It is also interesting to follow Opposition members who have spoken on this debate in this place. I was going to say that it is interesting to analyse their speeches but as frankly there was not a lot in their speeches to analyse I will not say that. Obviously I reject the amendment moved by the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd). I thought it was a bit of a joke where in the preface to the amendment he condemned the Government for its disgraceful neglect of the nation's roads. If there is any group of people in this chamber who should be condemned for the disgraceful neglect of the nation's roads it is those people who occupy the Opposition benches today. During the seven years they had control of the treasury bench they let the roads of this nation fall into decline. For them to come in here this evening and for the honourable member for Murray to move an amendment condemning this Government for the disgraceful neglect of the nation's roads quite frankly is humbug. It is also time that the Opposition parties really decided what they wanted. It is no good them running around the country calling for cuts. `Cuts, cuts, cuts' they are saying. They want cuts in this and cuts in that, but they especially want cuts in government expenditure. As soon as the Government takes an economic decision, they run around the country criticising the Government and calling out `spend, spend, spend'. They want more money spent on this or on that. In the mornings they call for economic restraint and cuts and in the afternoons they call for more spending. (Quorum formed) I would like to thank the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) for giving me this extra audience this evening. I would like to ask Opposition members where the funds are going to come from for them to do all they claim should be done, especially on roads, at the same time as cutting costs. They just cannot. We know it, they know it and the Australian people know it. They are just talking humbug. All honourable members accept that road transport is a fundamental part of the Australian way of life. Well designed and constructed roads make significant contributions to Australia. They reduce costs, save lives, encourage all forms of industry and repay to Australia far more than they cost. However, in the current economic circumstances where Australia is under pressure from external factors, it is essential that each section of the economy and of the community makes a contribution to the overall well-being of the country. No government has a better record in Federal road funding than this Hawke Labor Government. There has been a substantial increase in road funding since this Government came to office. I will tell honourable members just how substantial this increase is. Road funding represents an increase of 82 per cent over the amount provided in 1981-82-the last full year of the previous Government. Even when the increased costs of road construction are taken into account, road funding in 1986-87 is still 24 per cent above that provided by the Fraser Government in 1981-82. Funding for arterial roads, which is primarily a State responsibility, has increased by 91 per cent since 1981-82. That is a 31 per cent increase in real terms. Funding for local roads has increased by 60 per cent since 1981-82, which includes an increase of 2 per cent over 1985-86 and an increase of 10 per cent in real terms. Under this Government, Australia now has a fully sealed highway all around the continent. I am sure that all honourable members, like me, felt a sense of pride at seeing the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) on television when the last link in the north of Western Australia was sealed a few weeks back. This had been one of the major national highway objectives-another magnificent objective achieved by this Government. Other objectives being met are upgradings to meet the growing needs for safe and efficient road transport between major centres of population. The Government stands by its fundamental objectives and it is committed to improving one of Australia's greatest national assets, our national highway system. Total expenditure on the national highways has been increased by $262m to $564m since we have been in government. In fact, it is the largest Commonwealth works project ever undertaken in Australia's history. Yet the pathetic Jeremiahs and whingers opposite continue their ignorant bleating. They have no imagination, no daring and totally lack the initiative necessary to build for the nation what it needs most-a better, more efficient transport system to get our goods to market. In my own electorate of Throsby over the past years a considerable sum of money has been spent on the national highway. Work is well progressed on the much needed Berrima-Mittagong by-pass. This work will cost almost $50m. The work by-passing the historic town of Berrima is almost complete. Work has commenced on the second section from the Wingecarribee River to Welby and work is about to commence on the Welby-Alymerton section, which is estimated to cost over $30m. Despite all the money spent on this section, and bearing in mind that not one penny was spent by the previous Government on this section even though it was represented by a Liberal Party of Australia member, the Liberal-National Party members, including the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp), who should know better, and the two local State members-the honourable member for Goulburn and the honourable member for Camden-keep peddling the story that money has been diverted from this section to the Newcastle area. This, of course, is nothing but fanciful fabrication. As well as the millions to be allocated on this section, almost $11m has been allocated to the Illawarra-Hume Highway interchange and some $18m has been spent in by-passing Marulan. One of the most heavily trafficked and dangerous sections of the Sydney-Melbourne route will thus be eliminated. I am pleased that local roads have been allocated $258m for 1986-87. This is $5.1m more than they received in 1985-86-an increase of 2 per cent. Federal support for local roads also has to be seen as part of a total package for local government. In addition to the increase in specific purpose road funding, general purpose financial assistance for local government is to be maintained in real terms over the next two years. Councils are free to use these funds for any purpose they think appropriate, including road construction and maintenance. Overall, local government has fared well in the Budget, particularly given the present economic circumstances reflecting high levels of Federal commitment to local government. We recognise the restricted revenue base for local government and the pressures being placed on their road systems. For far too long under conservative governments they have been the poor relation. A major proportion of Federal road funds-75 per cent-is spent in non-metropolitan areas, maintaining employment and substantiating economic activity in rural areas. It is estimated, for example, that for every $1m spent on better roads, 60 jobs or thereabouts are created. These jobs are vital, especially in country areas. So much for the humbug and hypocrisy of National Party members, such as the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl), who last week, in this chamber, called for a zero deficit. Yet he blames the Federal Government for the condition of the Pacific Highway, a State road for which we have no responsibility and for which even less money would be available if his plans for the deficit were to be fulfilled. He should explain that to the people of Wauchope and Kempsey, because I most certainly will be explaining to them when I am up that way that he called for a Budget deficit. Last week he called this Budget a Clayton's Budget. He said that there should be real cuts. If there are to be real cuts, where is the money to come from for road funding? The honourable member for Cowper calls for real cuts in the morning and for more expenditure in the afternoon. This is symptomatic of the Opposition's whole approach. Let there be no confusion. The message is clear: We cannot go on spending what we do not earn. If honourable members opposite vote against this Bill, they vote for a higher deficit. They cannot have their cake and eat it too. Their opposition is a fraud. Our fellow Australians who travel over highways and see the fantastic amount of work being done can see that their taxes are being well spent. Some people might be fortunate enough to be driving along one of the super highways into which we have put so much money and listening to this broadcast on their car radios. Those people should ask themselves whether the roads they are driving along are better now, under the Hawke Labor Government, than they were under the previous Fraser Government. I invite those people to write to me and give me their answers. No matter how the Opposition tries to manipulate and juggle the figures, the bottom line is still the same. We have increased total road funding by 82 per cent since being elected to government. The rest from the Opposition is sour grapes. All the arguments about excise revenue and statistical mumbo-jumbo are a smoke- screen and are totally irrelevant. This Bill is no more than a temporary alteration to our committed road funding program; and it is totally responsible, given our economic circumstances. No State in the Commonwealth of Australia has received a reduction in funding-I am pleased to see that the temporary Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) is in the chamber to hear me wind up-and planning for future construction and maintenance can continue unabated. I admit that the expectations of the States might be dented somewhat, but the States being what they are, they have eyes bigger than their bellies. In any case, I can see no reason why the pain of economic necessity should not be shared by them as well as everyone else. It is a pity that we cannot be a generous as we would like to be, but we must face up to the facts. Honourable members opposite are condemned by their own words. They live in cloud-cuckoo-land. In short, people in glass houses should not throw stones. I never cease to be amazed at their short memories-their political amnesia. I know that my colleagues who will follow me in this debate will remind them of their appalling record. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory)(8.16) —I did not hear everything that the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) said in what appeared to be, for him, an impassioned contribution to this debate on the Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill. However, I heard him claim for this Government all the credit for the road programs under way. Anyone with any nous at all is aware that almost all, if not all, the programs, including the bicentennial road program, were started under the previous Government. Mr Howard —The Minister for Transport condemned the program. Mr EVERINGHAM —He did. He has condemned so many things. He is the biggest knocker around. I found the second reading speech of the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) a little difficult to stomach-almost as nauseating as all the signs one sees when one drives through Labor electorates, which say: `The Federal Government-Building Better Roads'. The Government does not seem to appreciate that it is the Australian taxpayer who is paying for those roads. The Federal Government has not built a road that I know of-it has financed a few-except perhaps in the Australian Capital Territory. But misleading advertising is not really a problem to this Administration. While speaking in fine phrases about the benefits of roads to all Australian communities and about bringing all Australians together, to use of the words of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), this Minister has supervised outside this House a calculated program of withdrawal from exactly those commitments. In particular, the Minister has seemed intent on putting as much distance as he possibly can between northern and southern Australians. This Bill is about reducing the percentage of duty paid on fuel for the Australian land transport program. Talking about fuels, the jokes are even going around the schools these days. They say that the Treasurer (Mr Keating)-`the world's greatest Treasurer'-is the only man who can defy Newton's law; the price of petrol keeps going up and never comes down. It is ironic that those who individually contribute the greatest amounts to the levy, the long haul truck and road train drivers who cart Australian goods along Australian roads to and from north Australian communities, are made to suffer most under the policies of this Government. This Bill will swipe from the Australian Land Transport Trust Fund much needed dollars for road improvements levied on users who are certainly trying to bring Australians together and will pay it into the bottomless pit of Consolidated Revenue where it can help defray the costs of midnight VIP flights from Sydney to Canberra. We can expect that the nearest these dollars will come to assisting transport needs is by funding some `peace' bus, or by helping to move the professionally unemployed from one protest site to another. In the life of the Hawke Government, shipping services to the north have been abandoned after a long history of gross ineptitude on the part of the Australian National Line. We had the promise of a railway to the north of Australia. `Trust me' said the Prime Minister; `Territorians, you can trust me'. We still have that television commercial. We play it at every election. `Only a Labor Government can be trusted to build the railway'. That promise was cynically dumped by this Government and this Minister. The promise of new domestic and international terminals at Darwin Airport has been deferred, which is too polite a euphemism for it. Alice Springs Airport, one of the busiest airports in Australia, has been left in the lurch whilst, in a politically discriminatory way, funds have gone to a much quieter airport than either Alice Springs or Darwin airports-to Townsville Airport. Even the allegedly compensatory road programs have been struck from the list of priorities. Yet the Minister has the gall to talk of bringing Australians closer together. The roads within Kakadu are not all that flash either. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) said the other day, I think, that we can expect an avalanche of tourists and much greater export income as a result of Crocodile Dundee having been filmed at Kakadu. Let me say that the roads and facilities are pretty poor. There are exactly 32 units of tourist accommodation available in Kakadu National Park, because that is all this Government has permitted to be constructed, despite numerous groups wanting to put tourist facilities into the park. When Northern Territorians talk of railing against this Government, it is more than just a deliberate pun. When this Government is thrown out of office at the next election, it will be a matter of great celebration in my distant and remote electorate, the Northern Territory, which, the Minister may care to recall, is still a special responsibility of the Commonwealth. I had cause to mention the accelerated Stuart Highway program in speaking on the 1985-86 Budget. I said then that the program could more aptly be named the `dust to dust and ashes to ashes program'. Let us look at the historical facts on Australian land transport, particularly as they affect the road program between northern and southern Australia. In 1982, the Australian bicentennial roads program was introduced, with its special emphasis being on the national highway system, and its timing to take us to the end of 1988. The notional allocation to the Northern Territory under that program was determined at $11.1m. In addition, this year the Territory should have received another $4.4m. This extra money was in direct compensation for the totally unnecessary and deliberately punitive freeze imposed upon the Territory's road program by this Minister in 1983-84-the justification being that everything was on hold while the Darwin-Alice Springs railway was under consideration. `Under consideration' was a nice euphemism. The railway was about as much `under consideration' as is a chicken on the chopping block. In 1985-86, instead of the expected $15m for roads, being the total of Australian bicentennial road program sharing and the shortfall from the 1983-84 freeze, the Territory received just $10.6 million. That means that the Territory suffered just short of a one-third cut in road program funding in the 1985-86 year. On top of this, the ASH program was totally abandoned. In 1984-85 this Government announced a program of upgrading for the Stuart Highway of $27m over three years, with $2.7m to be allocated in the first year. This was not an election promise. We are all quite used to seeing those broken, and we might have adopted a `believe it when we see it' attitude to that announcement had it been so. This was announced as part of the Budget, and was a consequence of the Federal Government's decision to renege on the railway. But in the 1985-86 Budget the anticipated funding of $8.6m was dropped completely. This year, of course, it has not re-emerged and, as part of across-the-board cuts, the Territory loses a further $800,000 from expected Commonwealth funding. This Government placed an impost of 3c per litre on fuel in the Budget, and a few days later added another 2c under the parity pricing scheme. That 5c a litre total will hit road construction as hard as anything else, with estimates in the Territory being that the price hike will mean a $750,000 cut in capital works. Across all Australia the cuts to road construction will run into the tens of millions of dollars. The net result of fuel price hikes, capital works cuts and the penny-pinching thrust of this Bill means that Australia's road programs have suffered a very severe setback. In the Territory alone, even a modest mathematician such as myself can calculate a loss of funding of more than $30m to road land transport over three years. Demon strably, money is not being spent `bringing Australians closer together'. This Bill is part of the desperate effort of this Administration to find funds to finance its maladministration and high spending years in office, and to try to reduce the appalling deficit that it has run up in that time. For the sake of all Australia, I hope that the Government succeeds in reducing the deficit since it must, most certainly, be undertaken as a matter of great urgency. I ask the Minister to drop the rhetoric about bringing Australians closer together while he is demonstrably doing everything to put distance between them. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat)(8.25) —I take considerable pleasure in speaking on the Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill 1986 as I think that, once again, it recognises the value of the Australian Land Transport (Finance Assistance) Act 1985. It is important to compare the record of this Government on roads with that of the previous Government. It should be recognised that in 1981-82 the Liberal-National Party Government's outlay on the roads of this nation, in adjusted terms-adjusted to current prices; although it certainly did not sound like that in those days-was $685m. In the following year, 1982-83, which was the last year of the Fraser Government's term of office-it did not complete its full term; thank goodness-the figure, in adjusted terms, was $850.9m. For 1983-84, which was the first year of the Labor Government, the figure was increased to $1,195.2m. The figure for 1986-87-and last year also-is $1,245m. That is an increase, since the Government came to office, of 81.8 per cent. I do not think that anyone can deny that. It is nonsense for people to talk about penny-pinching. In my State of Victoria there has been an increase of 84.3 per cent since that time. The figure went from $137.8m in 1981-82 which, as I said, was the last full year of the Fraser Government-thank goodness-to $253.9m in 1986-87. I shall now make a comment about funding in Queensland. I recall travelling to Townsville, which is now gloriously represented by my colleague the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay), who is an extremely diligent worker and spokesman for his people. I remember travelling there in 1981. I was very concerned, as were the people in that area, about the appalling condition of the roads in that State. They recognised fully just how serious the effect of those appalling roads was on the development of north Queensland, in particular the development of tourism for those ordinary Australians who just want to drive up there. At that time, the Fraser Government's miserable contribution to Queensland-(Quorum formed) I appreciate the fact that so many of my colleagues have come into the House expressly to hear this speech. It is interesting, when I was talking about the appalling state of Queensland roads, that it was a Queenslander who did not want to hear about it and that that person was not set down to speak on the Bill. At that time, as I said, the miserable contribution of the Fraser Government to Queensland for road funding was only $139.4m in current prices. This compares with $257.6m, which has been allocated to Queensland by the present Government in the 1986-87 Budget. Compared with the sum allocated to Queensland in the last year of the Fraser Government, this is an increase of 84.8 per cent. Mr Robert Brown —How much? Mr MILDREN —An 84.8 per cent increase-the highest percentage increase received by any State from the Federal Government. As my friend the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) said, much of that has come from Victoria. We do not mind, I suppose, we altruistic Victorians, supporting mendicant States-not too much, though. It bears stating that the Federal Government recognises just how significant is the development of roads to the future of Queensland. This contrasts with the many years of neglect that were evident under the previous Government. It also indicates just how ineffectual were the National Party members from Queensland. It is to the credit of the Labor Party representatives from Queensland that that State has done so well out of the Commonwealth Budgets. It is marvellous to see my friend the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh) and also the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) here this evening. One of the major successes of the Government's road construction program has been to achieve a fully sealed highway all round Australia, as has been mentioned by my good friend the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis). At this point, it is only fair to give credit to the previous Government, which initiated the Australian bicentennial road development program, even though it must be said that it was introduced as a pre-election device to shore up its collapsing fortunes. Happily, as history records, its electoral ploys failed. At least the program continued. During 1986-87, it is expected that $564m will be expended on the national highway system. The Government is determined to proceed with this program even though, because of the economic constraints imposed upon it by the downturn in returns on exports, its objectives will take somewhat longer to achieve. I guess this is disappointing to us all. Certainly my constituents in Ballarat will be looking forward to seeing money becoming available for the bypass road round Ballarat and the improvements to the Western Highway. Mr Snow —We can come and see the Swans now. Mr MILDREN —That is right. The Swans in Ballarat is a very good football team. I know, because I happen to be their No. 1 ticket holder. In the fiscal year 1986-87, it is expected that there will be a reduction of $50m to $836m in the Australian land transport programs revenue. This follows the decision to cut the excise rate hypothecated to the ALTP by 0.235c per litre from 1 July 1986. This is a special one-off measure that has been taken because of the impact of the current economic stringencies. Now it will, however, maintain the indexation and interest earning integrity of the ALTP. In 1986-87, the ABRD revenue is estimated to be $423.5m. What has to be stressed, however, is that the adjustment of the ALTP excise rate and cash payment limits do not alter this Government's fundamental commitment to the development of a better roads system for Australia. I have been particularly heartened by the responsible attitude of municipalities in my electorate of Ballarat and by their very mature recognition of the Government's determination to control expenditure, yet maintain as high a rate of expenditure on the nation's roads as possible. Mrs Darling —What do they have to say? Mr MILDREN —Those people recognise that they will have to ensure that the programs which they put in place are run as cost efficiently as possible. Money is also available for roads through local government grants, if they wish to use them for this purpose. They recognise that, under the local government grants, all local councils did well this year. They recognise as well as does the Government that, with less money to spend, the time frame within which the road building objectives are to be met has to be lengthened. But I stress that we are nonetheless committed to our road program. I am proud to say that this Government has directed most of its expenditure on roads to the improvement of national, rural arterial and rural local roads-- Mr O'Neil —So they should. Mr MILDREN —True. As the honourable member for Grey said, so they should. It is a pity that people on the other side of the House do not recognise the same thing. This represents 75 per cent of the total funds available for road construction. The sums to be spent on the two major programs are $439.6m on the ABRD and $810.4m on the ALTP, which is a total of $1,250m. I stress once again that the hypothecation principle of the 1985 legislation is unchanged. The ALTP trust fund will continue to receive a specified proportion of the duty of excise and customs levied on motor spirit and diesel fuel. The indexation provisions will continue for the rest of the ALT program. Under the hypothecation principle, $810m will be allocated to the trust fund in 1986-87. Over the life of the program, more than $4 billion will be allocated to it. This the first time in history that we have had a hypothecation excise since this program was introduced, and it has given some assurance to road construction bodies-at both State and local government level-of the funding that will come through. It is important to remember that although the ALTP excise rate has been marginally reduced, it will continue to be indexed in line with movements in the consumer price index, thus maintaining the real value of road funding to the States. I support this Bill before the House, and I suggest that there is absolutely no merit in the amendment that has been moved by the Opposition. Therefore, I commend the Bill to the House. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(8.38) —The people who live in the electorate of Gilmore are vitally concerned with the Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill because, as with most rural communities, roads are a major means of communication-in fact, the most commonly used means of communication-within the area. Over the years, people who live within the electorate of Gilmore have become very used to what can only be described in very kind terms as a substandard system of roads within the boundaries of this electorate. For some time, the electors of Gilmore have been talking to me about the need for an improvement in the quality of their roads. During my time as the member for Gilmore, I have looked around the electorate and have seen a number of roads, which, quite justifiably, live up to the reputation of being substandard. Trunk road 92, which runs from Braidwood through to Nerriga to the south coast near Nowra is a road on which many members of this House have travelled. They would agree with me that it is a very substandard road. In fact, it is probably the worst road in the electorate of Gilmore. Certainly, it is an issue that is of great importance, and that is why this Bill is important to the electors of Gilmore. The Princes Highway, on the south coast of New South Wales, running through Nowra, is a road that could be at best described as a goat track. The Olympic Way that runs through Cowra and Young is a disgraceful road. The road from Crookwell to Boorowa is a disaster. In fact, if honourable members drove on it at this time of the year they would be lucky to get from one end of it to the other. The road from Young to Boorowa via Murringo is a road that, despite a tremendous amount of lobbying, patience and work, is still not of a standard that most people would call satisfactory. Overall, throughout the electorate of Gilmore, there are a host of roads which are substandard. The Bill that is before the House is of great importance to the people in my electorate. Over the last few years we have been given a great deal of hope that these roads might be improved. In fact, when this Bill was introduced, many people thought that it would be the vehicle by which we would get better roads. Of course, as time has progressed, people have suddenly realised that this Bill will not be the be all and end all of road construction throughout Australia. As the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) has pointed out on previous occasions, if one takes into account the cutbacks that this Government has made in road funding over the years, there has been a real cut in road funding of about $150m. Mr Slipper —How much? Mr SHARP —One hundred and fifty million dollars. To put that figure of $150m into some sort of perspective, if one uses as a rule of thumb that it costs about $1m per kilometre of road construction, it amounts to 150 kilometres of beautiful bituminised four-lane dual carriageway highway that could be constructed throughout the country every year. To put it on a more local basis, it represents 1,500 kilometres of the sorts of local roads that most rural Australians drive on-that is, the $100,000 a kilometre type road. Prior to the Australian land transport program, the Fraser-Anthony Government introduced the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund. This was seen to be a means by which we would get better roads. We would get roads that would not be built in ordinary circumstances. So people in my elec- torate have been looking for a means to get better roads. In the centre of the electorate of Gilmore is the city of Goulburn. The Hume Highway runs through the main street of Goulburn. At the last count, about six million cars a year travel down the main street of Goulburn. Mr Peter Fisher —It also has the big ram. Mr SHARP —It also has the giant ram, which is a major tourist attraction. Some 720,000 people have been through it in the last 12 months. It was opened by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) just one year and three days ago. But the people of Goulburn have six million cars a year driving down their main street, in excess of 600,000 semi-trailers through the year and, I am told, in excess of 200,000 buses. Each of those vehicles belches out carbon monoxide, makes a noise and destroys the quality of life that Goulburn residents could achieve if those vehicles were diverted around Goulburn. Of course, the people of Goulburn have looked for some time now for a bypass to be built around the city. The construction of a Goulburn bypass has been an issue that has become quite relevant in the last few months. There has been a great deal of debate in the local media. I would like tonight to refer to some excerpts from the Goulburn Evening Post, the daily newspaper in Goulburn. On Monday, 14 July this year, there appeared a letter to the editor of the Goulburn Evening Post, written by none other than the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris). In the letter the Minister refers to the promise concerning the construction of a Goulburn bypass. The letter reads: From the outset, the strategy adopted entailed the provision of only four lanes from Sydney to Albury for the Hume Highway by 1988. It makes no commitment on the timing for the completion of any town bypasses such as Goulburn, and therefore, there is no question of the Federal Government's deferral of these bypasses. Later in the letter the Minister refers to some comments I have made in the paper previously. He states: Mr Sharp also needs to be reminded that the completion of the existing four lanes through Goulburn rather than a bypass at an earlier date was the clear choice of the Goulburn City Council during the consultation which led up to the formulation of the construction program for the Hume Highway. Four lanes have now been constructed, fully paid for by the Federal Government, conforming with that preference. The Minister was saying that there has never been a commitment to build a Goulburn bypass, that the commitment was only to construct four lanes from Sydney to Melbourne. I refer to a document entitled `Australian Bicentennial Road Development Program-Annual Report 1984-85'. Page 4 reads: SYDNEY-MELBOURNE NATIONAL HIGHWAY Continue work to provide four-lane travel over entire route. Provide bypasses of major towns including . . . Goulburn . . . I refer also to a document entitled `Capital Works Program 1984-1985-List of Projects'. It states: Goulburn bypass. Construction of dual carriageways including bridges. Commencement 1984-85. Completion 1987-88. Estimated cost $25.0 million. So there has been a commitment in the past to provide Goulburn with a bypass. We still do not have it. The Minister in his letter also refers to the fact that it was the preferred choice of the Goulburn City Council not to have a bypass, rather to have four lanes down the main street. Let us see what the then Mayor of Goulburn City Council, Alderman Ernie McDermott, said about that comment by the Minister. I point out that Alderman McDermott, who has now retired, was Mayor of Goulburn for 17 years. He was the Labor candidate for the State seat for a number of years and is a distinguished and well regarded citizen in the local community. Alderman McDermott is referred to in the main article of the 14 July issue of the Goulburn Evening Post. The first couple of paragraphs read: The Federal Minister for Transport, Mr Peter Morris, has placed the blame for the Goulburn bypass delay on the Goulburn City Council-a claim denied by former mayor Mr Ernie McDermott. Mr McDermott, who was mayor for 17 years, said today there was never any agreement to delay the bypass in favour of the four lane roadway through Goulburn. I think that speaks for itself. One wonders what has happened to the Goulburn bypass. The Minister for Roads in the State Parliament, the Hon. Laurie Brereton, sheds a little light on this question. To give you a little of the background, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Minister for Transport for some time has said: `It is not up to me to decide whether the Goulburn bypass is built. We as a Federal Government provide the States with the funds and it is up to the States to determine when and where they will spend those funds, and whether or not you are going to have a bypass around Goulburn'. I will read from a letter which the Minister for Roads in the State Parliament, the Hon. Laurie Brereton, wrote to the State member for Goulburn, Mr Robert Webster, on 15 September this year. He stated: Funds are unlikely to become available for the construction of the Goulburn bypass until the early 1990s. If the Commonwealth Government can provide more funds, then the Department of Main Roads would be in a position to advance anticipated commencement dates for a number of works funded under the national highways construction program. Mr McGauran —He is too busy with Darling Harbour. Mr SHARP —He is too busy with Darling Harbour, but he should be spending more time on the Goulburn bypass issue, because it is a very serious local issue. So the Minister for Roads in the State Parliament says: `If the Federal Government were to give me the appropriate amount, I could build the Goulburn bypass as quickly as possible'. One wonders where the money has gone that the Minister refers to as being necessary in order to get the Goulburn bypass up and running. The Minister for Roads sheds further light on this. I refer to an excerpt from the Goulburn Evening Post of 3 January 1986: The State Roads Minister Mr Brereton last week accused his federal counterpart, Mr Morris, of diverting $181 million intended to improve the Hume Highway to special work on the Sydney-Newcastle F3 Freeway. Strangely enough, that happens to be very close to the Minister's electorate. I think that Mr Brereton, in his honesty, has shed some light on what has happened to the money that would finance the construction of not only the Goulburn bypass, but also a lot of other bypasses and a lot of major highways throughout Australia. I suggest that the people of Goulburn have been sold short on this issue. What they will be looking for in future is a government that is prepared to put its money where its mouth is and not juggle the funds to suit its own parish-pump approach to politics. The people of Goulburn and the electors of Gilmore will be looking for a government and a Minister that are prepared to make the Goulburn by-pass a reality. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(8.50) —The Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill and the essential elements of road funding which it embraces represent a set of issues which are at once related both to the security and vitality of our economy and the health and safety of those Australians who participate in it. The question of road funding which this Bill addresses is linked inseparably to road safety and the causal relationship between the construction of a safe and effective road system and the greater safety of Australian road users, a truism which no observer could fail to recognise. For the same reason, no informed observer could ever fail to recognise the impact of the road funding policies of the present Federal Government in this area. This performance, and the comparatively deficient performance of our opponents, is pertinent to the debate. The Hawke Government has a strong record in road funding, and has had since it came to office. It is a record which in comparison with the previous Government shows not only a broader long-term commitment to the overall road funding needs of the nation but an attempt to redress the past neglect of funding needs of certain States which suffered under the unequal distribution of funding in seven years of the Fraser-Howard Administration. Cold, hard facts support this view. Federal road funding has increased substantially since the Hawke Government came to office. This Government has increased the level of actual road funding by 82 per cent since the last full year of the Fraser Government. The greatest individual increase has been in the funding of arterial roads. Despite being primarily a State responsibility, funding has increased by 31 per cent in real terms since this Government came to office. The allocation of funds for arterial roads for 1986-87 and the actual cash increase in Federal funding has been enormous. It has been 91 per cent or $201.6m. That is since the allocation of $422.3m since 1981-82. Funding of local roads has increased by 10 per cent in real terms since the last full year of the previous Government. In 1986-87, the Government will continue to assist the rural sector with 75 per cent of all road funding going into national, rural arterial and rural local roads, creating employment and sustaining economic activity in rural Australia. If we compare these achievements in just three years of Labor Government with the seven year performance of the previous Liberal-National Party Government, the difference is nothing short of spectacular. Let us consider these figures. In the last full year of the Fraser Government, 1981-82, Federal road funding was 25 per cent below that provided in the last full year of the previous Labor Government, 1974-75, and 30 per cent lower than the peak achieved in 1972-73. These figures are significant because they show the comparatively disastrous performance of our opponents in the area of road funding. This Government has maintained a considerable performance over a three-year period and any rationalisation of road funding in this legislation should be viewed within this context, particularly given prevailing economic circumstances. This Government recognises that unless fundamental economic issues are addressed, the longer term implications for all Australians will be far more serious than the impact of a small adjustment to road funding. But this temporary adjustment should not mask the reality of a sustained and real improvement to road funding in this country, which must be appreciated in the context of the overall three-year performance of this Government, and not just within the constraints of this exceptional Budget year. This effectively invalidates any criticism made by the Opposition in this debate about the level of road funding, the excise rate, the national highway, the ALTP, the ABRD or any other aspects of this legislation. This decision to adjust the ALTP excise rate and cash payment limit does not alter this Government's commitment to developing a better and safer road system for Australia. The variation in this excise is a one-off measure that is necessary in the present economic circumstances. The essential elements of the ALTP legislation, hypothecation and indexation will not be compromised and more than $810m will go into the ALTP trust fund to be used for future road funding. For the first time in Australian history, a Federal government has set up a special trust fund to cover main road programs. This Government and the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) believe in planning for the future of Australia. While the ALTP excise rate has been marginally reduced, it will continue to be indexed in line with movements in the consumer price index, and the real value of road funding to the States will therefore be maintained. The fuel excise for the ABRD program remains unchanged. This Government has been able formerly to allocate a portion of excise for road funding despite difficult economic circumstances. Federal funding of local roads has increased by 2 per cent in this year's Budget and local government will benefit from not only the specific road funding but from general purpose assistance, which will be maintained in real terms over the next two years. The national highway and bicentennial road programs have been enormous successes in the improvement of our roads. Australia now has a fully sealed highway, which stretches around the entire continent. This is something about which we should be proud. We have only to take to our highway to realise the benefits of this Government's road program. A map put out by the Minister for Transport and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) indicates the national highway very clearly, including improvement of roads, of course, in Tasmania. As I have said, it is something for us to be proud of as a government. Spending on the national highway will increase by $5m in 1986-87, and while some of the considerable objectives of the program may not be achieved within the original time span, the present Government has greatly improved the highway in all States. This issue of equal distribution of road funding between each State is quite significant in this debate. The Cameron Federal Road Funding Inquiry into the distribution of road funding is due to report to the Government by the end of next month and there are many issues in my home State of Queensland which have some relevance to the questions faced by that inquiry. In particular, I have been struck by the massive improvement to Federal road funding which has occurred in Queensland since the election of the Hawke Government and the quaint but predictable misrepresentation of that funding by the Queensland Government. (Quorum formed) Mr Deputy Speaker, it will take more than one quorum to stop me speaking about the quaint but predictable misrepresentation of Federal funding by the Queensland Government. The dramatic increase in Federal road funding in my home State is evidence of the Hawke Government's commitment to rectify the past neglect of the previous Liberal-National Party Government. I am all too familiar with the antics of Queensland Ministers in misrepresenting Federal funds in all areas of government policy, and I would like to offer a few facts in this area, which will give a true indication of the situation. An analysis of the amount spent on Federal road funding shows that Queensland has received an 84 per cent increase since that granted in the last year of the Fraser-Howard Government. This represents a real increase of 26.4 per cent for Queensland since the Hawke Government came to office. This figure is notable not only because it is part of a considerable national improvement in Federal road funding, but also because it shows that Queensland particularly has benefited from the policies of the Hawke Government. It is the largest increase of any State and is more than two per cent higher than the average national increase. In every aspect of funding, Queensland has received a generous proportion of the available Federal funds. Queensland has the second highest increase of any State in national and local road funding and the third highest increase in arterial road funding. Arterial roads are usually the responsibility of State governments, yet the Federal Government has increased its spending in this area by 91 per cent since it came to office. I would like honourable members to keep that in mind. In an article in the Courier-Mail this morning the following was said: Mr Hinze told the Australian Road Federation all the blame for the lack of road funds lay with the Federal Government. He said that the State Government recognised the worth of the Gateway arterial project and allocated all the funds for the roadworks from the South-East Freeway to the Bruce Highway. That is misrepresentation, as I shall demonstrate. In this morning's Brisbane Sun Mr Hinze said that Queenslanders could expect to pay the price for quality arterial roads in the future. He actually has a plan for the Queensland Government to introduce tolls on major Queensland highways. If the Queensland Government were properly to utilise the funding which this Government, under the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) has fed into Queensland for roads, instead of misusing it and misrepresenting the situation to cover up its inadequacies, it would not have to call for tolls on arterial roads. Mr Scott —We know for whom the bell tolls. Mrs DARLING —As the honourable member for Hindmarsh has just pointed out, we now know for whom the bell tolls. In the last financial year the Federal Government spent $117.6m on 67 projects on the national highway in Queensland. If any member of the Queensland Government or its former coalition partner wishes to criticise any aspect of road funding in Queensland, it is quite obvious where the legitimate blame must be placed. It must be placed squarely at the feet of the Queensland Government, because the Federal Government has more than fulfilled its role in providing road funds to the State. In fact, if the Queensland Government were less willing to manipulate politically and to misrepresent Federal funding and more willing to co-operate with the Commonwealth by using funds effectively-(Quorum formed) Mr Deputy Speaker, I have been trying to outline the deception of the Queensland Government in misrepresenting the Federal funding of roads in Queensland, which has received the highest percentage-84 per cent-increase in funding. The Queensland Premier attempted in March this year to claim credit for a $44.6m project on the Bruce Highway, which was entirely funded by the Federal Government. In my electorate I have seen evidence of this lack of acknowledgement of the contribution of the Federal Government. The Gateway Bridge and the Gateway arterial road were opened earlier this year to a great fanfare by the State Government. Part of the Gateway arterial road is situated in my electorate, and part in the electorate of my colleague the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys). It came as something of a shock to me to discover that the State Government had given no recognition whatsoever to the $21m contributed by the Federal Government for the road and associated works in Lilley. In fact, the Premier went on record in the media as saying: `The company has provided the bridge and the State government the approach roadworks'. That statement was a clear deception and was designed to alienate the Federal Government from the public relations exercise which the State Government had undertaken in an election year. The State Government has no right to politically manipulate Federal funds, particularly in an area of such crucial importance to the safety of Queenslanders. The deliberately deceptive tactics of the Queensland Government merely highlight the dire situation of a State government on the verge of collapse. State governments, regardless of their political persuasion, should assist Federal governments as much as possible in improving the welfare of all Australians. It is particularly galling that the Queensland Government misrepresents the funds of a Federal government which has assisted the State to such a great extent. There is no doubt about the direct causal relationship between road construction and maintenance and road safety. The enormous increase in road funding under this Government has been a major influence on the reduction of the road toll in Queensland, as well as in the rest of the nation. The yearly total of fatalities on Australian roads has decreased by 12.6 per cent in recent years. This legislation will also play its part in the continuing struggle for the advancement of road safety, and it is in keeping with the economic safety needs of the Australian people. We are facing a situation in which economic restraint must be addressed for the long term benefit of the nation. This legislation addresses this problem by maintaining the integrity of the progress and funding increases achieved to date under this Government and by providing a solid foundation on which future road funding can be expanded and improved for the benefit of all Australians. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(9.10) —Many Tasmanians will be listening tonight, and I intend to tell them a little about what is happening to their contribution to road funding throughout Australia and about the price they are paying for petrol. Road safety and the construction and maintenance of our roads should be beyond politics, but one always finds that it cannot be because one dog will try to kill the other dog. I have listened intently to the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) for quite a few years. When the Liberal and National parties were in government he attacked and attacked. He now expects everybody to sit back and allow him to take a media run and all the credit for most of the things that are occurring today. I know that that is the name of the game. One must be able to sell, and I must admit that the Minister for Transport has a good way of selling his product. When the taxpayers of Australia are paying for road construction and maintenance it should, to a degree, be beyond politics but, regrettably, it never is. A dog fight always occurs, with statements that a certain amount of funding should be allocated elsewhere and that another amount of funding should be allocated somewhere else. Somebody mentioned freight compensation; it is not called equalisation any more. The people of Canberra are nice people, but $17m plus is spent on their bus service and on the most beautiful roads and footpaths in the world. I compare Canberra with poor old Tassie which has footpaths that one could hardly describe as being suitable to ride a pushbike. Some of our roads need construction and maintenance work. At the moment the people of Tasmania are paying 64c a litre for petrol. In the 1986-87 Budget brought down on 19 August, excise on petroleum products was increased by 3c per litre, together with other increases in July and August. This brings the excise rate to 23.884c per litre. For every litre of petrol sold, roughly 30c goes to the Federal Government. I would like to think that that money was distributed in a fair and equitable way, that every State and every motorist in Australia was paying a fair price. Regrettably, that is not the case. The Prices Surveillance Authority was set up by the Federal Government to bring down fair wholesale prices. It recommends a maximum wholesale price in every capital city in Australia. When I see the petrol prices in the capital cities I actually feel sick inside, because the people of Tasmania probably have the lowest incomes of any people in any State of Australia. Their roads are not as good as those in most other States. They need their motor vehicles and at this point they are paying 64c a litre for petrol. It is hard to understand why they should have to pay it. Mr Nehl —How much are they paying? Mr GOODLUCK —They are paying 64c a litre. The other day, when I asked the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) a question I tried to be very fair. During the 1983 election campaign the Treasurer (Mr Keating) consistently said that the petrol tax was stealth at the petrol pump, that everybody at the petrol pump was paying taxation. The Prime Minister, in his election campaign, said that he would reduce the price of petrol by 3c a litre and that he would freeze the price of overseas crude. However, he and the Treasurer got caught in what is occurring. The poor old consumer, the poor old motorist, is just the milking cow for the Federal Government. He is just one who has to pay for some of these hare-brained schemes, the one who has to pay for the construction of roads, the one who has to be able to make the Budget balance and, regrettably, he wants a fair go. We all supported import parity pricing. That means simply that we wanted to pay the same price for local crude as we do for imported crude. We said that we would do it when Mr Fraser was Prime Minister because we wanted conservation. There was a world shortage of oil, we wanted to look for alternatives and we in Australia wanted to be self-sufficient. But at the moment there is a world glut of oil. The other day the price of a barrel of oil went from $US8 to $US13. It is the cheapest it has ever been. Yet we are still paying, on average, 13c a litre more for our petrol right through Australia than we were when the Prime Minister came into Government. We are still paying more in excise than ever before. The poor people of Tasmania are still paying 64c a litre and they ask whether it is fair. It is not fair. The other day I read an article in the Melbourne Age which was spot on. I rang a young lady, Jenny Conley from the Melbourne Age, who did a lot of research into this matter. I complimented her on the fact that she was able to pinpoint exactly what is occurring in this country. The oil companies need taking to task for what they are doing. They know dashed well that if we are to have fairness in Australia they have to play the game too, as does the Federal Government. If it is fair for somebody to construct roads in Australia for the benefit of everybody, it has to be fair that every consumer, every motorist, pays a fair price. However, Tasmania is paying through the neck. Some of the truckies who are driving around Tasmania tonight, finding it difficult to survive because of the high costs of fuel, tyres, insurance, buying a truck on hire purchase or leasing it, et cetera, must be saying to themselves: `How much more of this penalty of a high price for fuel can we bear?'. The farmers of Australia are having the same problem. They are paying through the neck. Fishermen and everybody who is involved with transportation is paying. Everyday in Tasmania we hear such glib, open liners as: `The poor housewives are paying through the neck for their food products, et cetera'. Nobody gets to the real root of the trouble. It is the high cost of fuel and the high cost of transportation which are killing Tasmania. My friend and colleague the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) and my friend and colleague the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) know that what I am saying is absolutely true. The people of Tasmania have had it up to the neck. The situation has reached a crisis level and is having a dampening effect on the economy of Tasmania. The Premier of Tasmania had to increase the price of petrol by 5c a litre in his Budget because he knows that it is the only simple way of getting revenue when he is short-sheeted. The Minister for Transport may laugh, but the people from Tasmania are not stupid; they realise that the Hawke Government has done nothing for Tasmania. The Hawke Government short-sheeted Tasmania in the Budget and regrettably, to balance the Budget, the Premier had to take a step which he did not want to take; he had to increase the price of petrol by 5c a litre. That has had a dampening effect. Mr Hodgman —They had a gun at his head. Mr GOODLUCK —The Federal Government had a gun at his head, as the honourable member for Denison says. We need to get a bit of fairness into the whole system. If the consumers of Australia are to pay 2c a litre for road maintenance and construction under the bicentennial program, and if we are to have a satisfactory highway around Australia for safety and transportation, the collection of revenue must be fair for everybody. I ask every honourable member in the House to help me in my concerted campaign to get equality and a bit of fairness into the pricing of petrol. I do not want to see the price of petrol in Queensland at 43c a litre when the people of Tasmania are paying 64c; I do not want to see it costing 49c in Melbourne when people in Tasmania are paying 64c; I do not even want to see it costing 52c in Western Australia when the people of Tasmania are paying 64c. Arguments can be put forward about the roster system and about there being too many service stations, but the pure and simple fact is that if the Prices Surveillance Authority-an organisation controlled by the Federal Government-fixes a maximum wholesale price of petrol in Australia-and oil companies can sell below it to suit their whim and fancy, it is to the detriment of all Australians and we need to do something about it. It is to the detriment of the truck drivers, of the consumers who drive cars and of everybody else if it is not done on a fair and equitable basis. I hope that this debate on the road system will be conducted in the same vein. Let us cut out the stupid politics about this road and that road; if we all get down to sane fairness we will get somewhere. I hope my wife is listening tonight. I lost my pet cockie and I hope they find it in Tasmania. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(9.20) —Three years ago road conditions in south-eastern New South Wales were at an all time low. Today, there is no doubt about it, roads are better. Naturally, in a large country with a small number of taxpayers to cover each kilometre of road, it is difficult to achieve the standards of the more populous countries. Between 1975 and 1983 the expenditure on roads was slashed by 23 per cent. Under the dedicated representation of the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) we can compare that 23 per cent drop in seven years with a 12 per cent increase in real terms in three years since that date. The expenditure on roads was down 23 per cent under the Lynch and Howard Budgets. There has been a 12 per cent increase under the Keating Budgets. Expenditure was down $517m under the Lynch and Howard Budgets. It has increased by $144m under the Keating Budgets under the stewardship of the Minister for Transport. It is not as if this Government has increased petrol taxes to the same extent in real terms. In the seven years fuel prices rose by 300 per cent. Compare that 300 per cent increase in fuel prices in seven years with a mere 25 per cent increase in three years to 1986. Fuel-related taxes rose by 400 per cent under the Fraser-Howard Budgets. Tonight some honourable members have consistently called on the Federal Government to cut government spending, yet every time an issue comes up they call for an increase in spending. So tonight we hear yesterday's courageous economic Rambos, the slashers of public spending, coming here and shrinking back into the wet caves of economic darkness where they feel most comfortable. Yesterday's dries are today's wets. They are dry before they go into battle and wet when they reach the front. Confronted with a vote winning issue, no matter what the cost, they are there saying that the Government is not spending enough. They cannot tell us, they will not tell us, where they will make the cuts. I will tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, where they will make the cuts-where they made them last time and that is roads. How will they do it? (Quorum formed) The Opposition did not like it when I challenged it to tell us where it would make the cuts. As I said before we know where it will make the cuts and that is where it made the cuts last time-on roads. How will that be done? The last statement that I can find from the Opposition makes it very clear. Under its policy it would hand funding for arterial and local roads to the States. Every local council, every ratepayer must have grave reservations about $260m of their taxes especially earmarked for local roads disappearing from their revenue source like quicksilver. Local government funding would have to come from the States, competing with schools, hospitals and other State programs. But it will not happen because ratepayers will not vote for a Federal party which refuses to earmark funds for local roads. Arterial road funding would also be handed to the States under Liberal-National Party policy. Again, people will reject that policy. Today the Federal Government is specifically earmarking $420m for arterial roads such as the Princes Highway, the coast road from Queanbeyan to Bateman's Bay, and other important arterial roads throughout Australia. Imagine what would happen if responsibility for $90m of arterial road funding to Queensland was handed over in its entirety to the present Queensland Government. The honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) tonight quoted Minister Hinze in Queensland who is threatening a toll on Queensland road users. A newspaper headline reads: `Hinze plans toll on roads'. What would he do in the unlikely event of a Federal coalition government asking his Government to find $90m for arterial road funding. Of course, that would require an impossible coincidence; first, the election of a Federal Liberal-National Party government, and secondly, the re-election of a National Party government in Queensland. It is a government with the highest total per capita fees in the nation. It has been my privilege in recent years to represent the Hawke Government at the opening of a number of important bridges and roads in the Eden-Monaro electorate. A couple of months ago I opened the Sutton interchange on the Federal Highway. It was an excellent opening. A couple of months before that I opened the Burbong bridge on the coast road. More recently, I opened the two bridges at Numerella on the Monaro Highway. I attended with the State Minister for Roads the opening of the Saucy Creek bridge out of Bombala. Next Monday I will be opening a bridge near Bega. Spending on roads returns a dividend to the community. Better roads mean less fuel costs, less accidents, less wear and tear, and cheaper transport. I welcome the assurance of the Minister for Transport that he will quickly deal with any request from the New South Wales Government for funds for the Princes Highway and the coast road on the basis of a high priority by that State. There is also important work to be done on trunk roads 91 and 92 in my electorate. As I said, we are a small nation in population but a big nation in geographical area. We have a lot of responsibility. I congratulate the Government, particularly the Minister, on the way it has handled those responsibilities. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(9.28) —We all know that this Government is capable of just about doing anything with figures. I have a simple economic theory that says two plus two equals four. Under this Government it can be any figure. The honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) was just saying how the Government has managed to increase road funding. I think he used a figure of $140m. That is just not enough. The funding for the Australian bicentennial road development fund that was instituted by the previous Government would have to be close to $500m this year. I say that because I note that the Minister mentioned a figure of $440m last year. Even he, of course, fiddles with figures because in his previous second reading speech in this place on this subject he said: As I have noted earlier, together with the $440m to be provided under the ABRD program, the Federal Government's road building program in 1985-86 will total $1,245m an increase of 82 per cent on 1981-82. The first point I make about 1981-82 is that it had only half the ABRD collections then because it was introduced at 1c per litre and later expanded to 2c per litre, and it was an initiative of the previous Government. What is this Government doing in this Budget-the greatest sleight of hand trick since the Treasurer worked out how to get $17,000 of the taxpayers' money on his house. The sleight of hand trick is that the Government is leaving money in the bank. The Government is putting the tax burden on Australians but it is then leaving it in the bank in the Australian bicentennial trust fund so that it can say to Australians that there is some fiscal restraint. I am all for fiscal restraint. I will not be classified in any category, but I am all for fiscal restraint. But let me tell honourable members that when I set out to save money, I save it in the places where it is best saved. I certainly will not cut down spending on roads and those things which the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) tells us are of great importance to our nation. When the Minister was booming up this policy in his previous second reading speech, which is like the accord-we are getting into the Bicentennial and the Australian land transport program or whatever we call this particular thing-we are getting into mark 2. The next one will be mark 3 and everyone will spend a little less money. We will just be doing it a different way. This is what he said: I cannot emphasise too strongly the importance that efficient transport systems have to the economic well-being of all Australians. About $1 in every seven spent in this country is on transport. Transport impacts on every facet of our economic and social activity. If he believes that, what is he doing letting road funding be cut? The Government did not cut expenditure this year; it is spending more money overall. All this carping we have had here about our overseas problems has ignored the fact that this Budget is the biggest taxing Budget and the biggest spending Budget in the history of Australia. It just so happens that this Minister was unable to protect his portfolio and so he got the cuts. But that is not so for the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen). He did not have any cuts. He had an increase in real terms, which was reported in the Australian. Mr Gear —Oh, go on! Mr TUCKEY —The honourable member for Canning might like to listen. The article in the Australian stated: The individual interests in the arts by members of the Hawke Cabinet played an important role in preserving arts funding in the recent Federal Budget, the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, Mr Cohen, said yesterday. `I think we're very fortunate that this present Federal Government has got a lot of Government Ministers who are interested in the arts,' Mr Cohen said in Adelaide. `The Treasurer (Mr Keating) is really good on museums- that is where he keeps up on the value of his clocks; obviously Mr Anderson does not go there because otherwise he would not pay him so much for them- he's really been a tremendous help to me. `Gareth Evans . . . has a real interest in the ballet, John Button . . . and John Brown . . . in the opera.' While other departments fell under Mr Keating's axe- including our roads- the arts came through relatively unscathed . . . Spending on the arts was increased by $500,000 in real terms. Mr Langmore —Thank heavens for that. Mr TUCKEY —In fact it was up. I am pleased to hear that too, but I just wonder how the beer drinkers of this country, Labor's so-called constituency, feel about having their taxes put up on their simple entertainment every six months by the people opposite. Honourable members opposite are the ones who indexed the excise on beer. They are the ones who indexed the excise on fuel, and now they will not even keep their promise of spending a lousy 5c of that particular 24c per litre on roads. They are cutting back in the very area where some good could be done. This is where it is going-off to the arts and everything. Talk about a mob of Bollinger socialists! We have got them here. They cannot look after their own working class constituencies, people who cannot afford to go to see Joan Sutherland. I have a list here of professors who will be subsidised, all Bollinger socialists, to go to the opera and the ballet, but honourable members opposite will not do much for the working class people whose simple pleasures are driving their motor cars and having a few beers. There is every system in the world to interfere with that. Mr Robert Brown —And you are a bloke who owns a pub. Mr TUCKEY —Yes, I do own an hotel, and my concern is for the people who drink there because I mixed with them while all these Ministers went off to the ballet. This is the point. Mr Robert Brown —And you water the beer. Mr TUCKEY —I certainly do not. The honourable member for Charlton should not say things like that. That is being stupid. Mr Robert Brown —Some of your comments have been much worse. Mr TUCKEY —Only when they were true. The honourable member can cut that out. That is unnecessary. Mr Robert Brown —And some of your comments-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member for Charlton will stop interjecting. Mr TUCKEY —The honourable member for Charlton knows that it is starting to hurt. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the honourable member for Charlton persists in interjecting, the Chair will have to take action. Mr TUCKEY —We know what this is all about. We are reducing the amount of money. The Minister told us last year that, together with the Australian bicentennial road development program, Federal expenditure on roads will total $1,245m in 1985-86. But what does the Minister tell us in this speech? He says: This measure, and the decision to hold payments in 1986-87, under the Australian Bicentennial road development-ABRD-program and the ALTP to $1250m forms an integral part of the Government's overall economic strategy. One can see that those two figures in dollar terms are exactly the same. In fact, it is down $5m in actual dollar terms, according to what the Minister said in those two speeches. We know what that means in real terms under the sort of inflation that honourable members opposite have re-established in this country. As I said, we have had the accord mark 1, and the accord mark 2 and now we are into the tri-cord. Every one of them seems to get a little closer to our policies. Last night the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) was on about our not having some policies. I give honourable members opposite credit for repetition. They are good at it. They keep telling people. They are like our Treasurer (Mr Keating). Is he not great? He is like an economic vacuum. We have asked him questions about how his actual legislation runs. In fact, an honourable member from his own side said to him: `Tell us the story of the log book that everybody hates'. He said: `You do not have to worry about the log book. You only fill in the private kilometres'. His own Commissioner of Taxation had to correct him, and I came into this Parliament and reminded him of the irresponsibility of that statement. Mr Lloyd —Was that the VIP fly-by-night Treasurer? Mr TUCKEY —That could be he. It is the $17,000 kid. But the whole thing about it is that he misled Australia in a very bad and irresponsible way because there would have been people out there who might not get their field audit for five or six years who could have been filling in private kilometres in their log books, and when confronted with their field audit they would have had all their deductibility for vehicle usage disallowed, if they had listened to the Treasurer. I have met a few farmers, truck owners and small business people who believe what the Treasurer told us, along with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), that interest rates would fall. Those poor people went out and borrowed money because they trusted the Treasurer. They believed him. What happened to them? They are now paying 18 per cent and 20 per cent for their money. People came to me the other day in Townsville to tell me that cars are being sold in that town- Mr Robert Brown —That is not in your electorate. Mr TUCKEY —No, but I was there doing some campaigning. I was shocked to hear that people-I got this from the horse's mouth-are selling their motor cars so that they can keep their homes. I am not telling honourable members something that did not happen. That is the truth. Those people are doing it because of what has happened to the interest rates regime in this place. It was the Treasurer who misled some of these people into buying homes and extending themselves on credit; they believed him. But he cannot tell us any of these things when we ask him questions. What are some of the other things that the Treasurer cannot answer when he comes in here? He could not even answer a question from an honourable member on our benches yesterday. Honourable members opposite were at it again today. As soon as there is a little criticism of the Treasurer, Government members say: `Oh, you never ask us any economic questions'. Why should we bother? Someone asked the Treasurer this simple question yesterday: `If I now put up my $200, which the Government increased from $2, to appeal my taxation assessment, will I get it back if I win?'. The Treasurer said: `I have not got the paper with me. I do not know'. The reasonable odds are that one would get it back if the appeal was won, but he could not answer that simple question on his own legislation. This is this great guru. He knows only one thing-winning the argument. He never wants to be confused by the facts. When somebody else asked him what the score was on housing he did not know from his fellow Minister that in fact housing estimates had gone down by 10,000. The honourable member for Charlton need not rise to take a point of order as I am finished with the Treasurer and I am nearly finished with what I am saying. Mr Robert Brown —The honourable member has certainly anticipated my point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know that this has been a fairly wide-ranging debate but it is important that the honourable member get back to the essence of the Bill we are considering. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —I ask the honourable member to address his remarks to the Bill. Mr TUCKEY —I am only too pleased to do so, Mr Deputy Speaker. There are other aspects of this expenditure cut. This measure is an expenditure cut. I have already said that I approve of expenditure cuts. However, I do not want to see them made in such basic areas as our roads. Mr Lee —Oh! Mr TUCKEY —I have just given honourable members examples. The Bollinger socialists opposite want to tax petrol and beer, the working man's pleasures, so that all their professor-type Ministers can go off to the opera and the ballet. That is all right; that is their judgment. But just let them go and sell it in a few of the bars around their electorates when they put up the price of beer again at Christmas time, as they will. Three State Premiers have done so by dramatic amounts recently-Premiers Cain, Unsworth and Burke. They blame the Federal Government for it. They say that it did not give them enough money. The Government probably gave them too much. The other facts of life are that the Australian bicentennial road development program money impacts on rural areas. It is being paid; it is not discounted. That is a problem for rural people. Let me remind the House that the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) told us tonight how difficult it was for people in remote areas who pay huge fuel taxes. The Government has put up the tax on fuel from 6c to 24c per litre. That sort of tax is going on rail freight, road freight and stock freight. All these things are hurting people in remote areas. It is time honourable members who represent remote areas remembered that. It is also contributing to the fact that some people must sell vehicles and such things just to keep the family home. That should not be the case. Thirty per cent of the cost of running an owner-driver's truck goes in taxes. Thirty-five per cent is what he has to pay for fuel. These things should be realised and considered. This measure is not a sensible solution. It also makes a joke of the sorts of statements the Minister made in this House when he introduced this novel means of funding road construction. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(9.42) —The Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill 1986 amends the Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Act 1985 by varying the rate of duty calculated in accordance with section 16 of the principal Act from 3.845c per litre to 3.61c per litre, to apply from 1 July 1986. The Australian land transport program, initiated by the Hawke Government, represents the commencement of a truly national transport strategy for Australia. It is a comprehensive strategy. It addresses the problems of providing adequate funding in a cohesive way for roads, railways, transport research and road safety. It will ensure that Australians receive an efficient transport system and that their economic well-being will never be impeded by an inadequate transport system. Prior to the election of the Hawke Government in 1983, and with the notable exception of the Whitlam Government, the history of road funding by the Commonwealth was a sorry record of deliberate neglect. In the early 1920s the Hughes Government provided assistance to the States for roads, primarily as a means to alleviate unemployment, especially among ex-servicemen. Previously, some Commonwealth funds had been made available through the Department of Repatriation for making or repairing development roads. The Main Roads Development Act 1923 represented the first occasion on which the Commonwealth used its powers under section 96 of the Constitution to `grant financial assistance to any State on such terms and conditions as the Parliament sees fit'. That is, it was the first form of specific purpose grant. A grant of $1m was provided to the States in 1923-24 for expenditure on the construction of main roads, main trunk roads between important towns where no railways were provided and arterial roads through country areas unable to finance the heavy costs of road construction. The basic argument used in support of Federal Government road funding-to speed up the construction of main roads-is still used in support of Federal Government road grants today. North Queenslanders bitterly remember that it was not until 1962, some 13 years after the Menzies Government took power, that the Bruce Highway from Brisbane to Cairns was completely sealed. In 1974 the Whitlam Labor Government introduced the National Roads Act and the Road Grants Act and thereby assumed full funding responsibility for roads which had been identified as being of special national significance, such as the national highways. This ambitious program to rebuild the land transport system of Australia was dealt a savage blow by the Fraser Government. For example, real road grants by the Federal Government to the States were slashed by 29.5 per cent during the seven years of the Fraser Government. Queensland suffered a major cut in Federal funding for roads. Almost all State governments and councils in Australia were furious at Federal government cutbacks in road funding. Honourable members will vividly remember that during the years of the Fraser Government, Australian roads were cracking and crumbling under the strain of declining Federal government real funding for our national road network. There is no doubt that the Fraser Government's culpable failure to allocate a fair share of road users' taxation to the upgrading of Australia's road system was a direct cause of the increased tragic toll on the roads. It was an act of brutal cynicism and displayed a callous disregard for human life. The national highway was falling into decay. The then chief executive of the National Roads and Motorists Association, Mr George James, was reported in the Australian of 19 March 1982, as saying that the Fraser Government bore a `great responsibility for the failure to reduce the road toll'. He continued: If New South Wales wants to achieve a major reduction in the road toll it will have to receive much better treatment from the Federal Government. In New South Wales we have how reached crisis point. We are now seeing the wastage of assets which will take generations to repair. He blamed the cutbacks on the then Federal Minister for Transport, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt). On 17 March 1982 a report by the Bureau of Transport Economics on road construction price indices was tabled in this Parliament. The report confirmed that Fraser Government road funds, expressed in real terms, had been sharply reduced. It showed that road construction costs rose by 15.9 per cent in 1979-80 and by 15.3 per cent in 1980-81. These rises compared with increases in Fraser Government road funds of 7.5 per cent in 1979-80 and 11 per cent 1980-81. This sharp reduction in Fraser Government-funded road works was made when road users were being clobbered with a heavy fuel tax, levy increases and record personal taxation. The Liberal member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) was a member of the Fraser Government that trebled the price of petrol, quadrupled the fuel-related tax take and slashed more than half a billion dollars from road expenditure. In 1981 more than 3,500 Australians were killed and about 90,000 were maimed or injured on Australia's roads. The appalling death and injury toll on Australia's roads, which cost $4 billion in the last year of the Fraser Government in monetary terms alone, was fostered by the Fraser Government's low priority on roads. There was no fairness in the Fraser Government's policies. While motorists paid the burden of tax evasion by shrewd operators, the Liberal-National Party Government squandered millions of dollars on lavish living for itself-international safaris, purchases of Boeing 707 flying hotels for overseas junkets, personal chefs and butlers, and propaganda to prop up an incompetent and dying government. When the Hawke Government came to office, it was faced with a massive Budget deficit. During the 1983 election campaign it was suggested by the Fraser Government that the prospective 1983 Budget deficit would be of the order of $6 billion. After the election it was revealed that the prospective deficit was $9.6 billion. Notwithstanding these considerations, the Hawke Government recognised that a high priority had to be given to investment in roads as a basis for aiding economic development and creating jobs and to redress the decline in the road system which had occurred due to the previous years of Fraser Government neglect. On 13 November 1984 the Prime Minister of Australia (Mr Hawke) pledged to the Australian people that his Government would continue the greatest road building and maintenance program in Australia's history, that within the next three years the national highway system would be brought to an all-weather, dust-free and flood-free standard, and that the Bruce Highway would be transformed to give the growing cities and towns of north Queensland the genuine highway standard link they need and deserve. (Quorum formed) As I said, on 13 November 1984 the Prime Minister pledged that his Government, an authentic Australian government, would initiate the most comprehensive overhaul ever undertaken of Australia's national transport system. In 1985 the Hawke Government passed legislation establishing the Australian land transport program. For the first time, Australia had a truly national transport strategy. The Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Act 1985 established a trust fund into which would be paid, as from 1 July 1985, an amount equivalent to 3.66c per litre of net revenue collected from Customs and excise duties on motor spirit and diesel fuel. That rate was to be subject to an adjustment twice yearly in line with movements in the consumer price index. The rate has been increased, from 1 August 1986, to 3.755c per litre. This provision is consistent with Australian Labor Party policy of returning a fairer share of fuel related revenue to road works funding. Revenue from this duty during the year 1986-87 is estimated at $810m. Funds payable from the Australian Land Transport Program Trust Fund will be allocated on a percentage basis to national roads, urban arterial roads, rural arterial roads, local roads, land transport research and road safety. The Australian land transport program replaced the Roads Grants Act scheme which expired on 30 June 1985. The Australian bicentennial road development program is continuing separately. Federal Government funding under the Hawke Government's Australian land transport program and the Australian bicentennial road development program will provide a record $1,250m for road construction, maintenance and research in 1986-87. By way of contrast, during the last full year of the Fraser Government-that is, 1981-82-a miserable sum of $685m was allocated for all road construction and maintenance. In other words, the allocation of Federal funds under these Hawke Government programs is 82 per cent more in money terms and 25 per cent more in real terms than that provided by the Fraser Government in 1981-82. Total spending on the 16,000-kilometre national highway will increase by $569m in this financial year compared with $559m last financial year. The urgent need for adequate roads and the ever-increasing pressure on Australia's road system, especially the national highways, demand that road funding be placed on a predictable and assured basis. Now, for the first time ever, road funding under the Hawke Government is on a predictable and assured basis. Hawke Government road legislation gives encouragement for State and local road authorities, the construction industry and equipment suppliers to plan over a longer term, thanks to the certainty of funding. In contrast, the policy of the Liberal and National parties is the abolition of specific local road funding for the States and local government authorities. The Australian land transport program provides the most comprehensive approach ever in funding for roads. This program will sustain the record level of Federal funding for roads which has occurred since the Hawke Government came to office. The Hawke Government is determined to achieve its commitment to upgrade the national highway system by 1988. The accomplishment of this great national undertaking will earn for the Hawke Government the enduring gratitude of every Australian. It is the fulfilment of a pledge made to the Australian people in the 1984 election policy speech by the greatest Prime Minister in Australia's history, Bob Hawke. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(9.57) —What a performance Australia has been treated to tonight. The honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) and the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) came in here and trotted out the tired old cliches and the stale pastry, saying that it was the Fraser-Anthony Government that caused the trouble; that Mr Fraser and Mr Anthony were the bad boys. Whenever honourable members opposite cannot stand up to the truth, whenever they cannot face reality, what do they do? They blame the Fraser Government. What a useless lot of people they are. Mr Braithwaite —Look; they have run out of the chamber. Mr NEHL —Of course they have run out of the chamber. They know when to get out. I tell them and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that by the time I have finished tonight I shall have demonstrated conclusively how wrong they are continually to blame their own sins, shortcomings, faults and transgressions on the Fraser Government. It is time that they had the maturity to take what is coming to them, because it is coming soon. At the next election, they will get what is coming to them. The honourable member for Herbert-- Dr Charlesworth —And a good speech, too. Mr NEHL —A good speech! It was a speech full of distortions, half truths and statistics. As Disraeli said, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Mr Gayler —That is what Disraeli said. Mr NEHL —I am glad that the honourable member's memory is also correct. The honourable member for Herbert said, and I can quote him, that under Fraser the people of Australia were being clobbered by heavy road tax and by the highest ever taxes. How can any member of the Hawke-Keating failed Labor Government have the utter gall to stand up in this chamber and suggest that the Fraser Government had the heaviest road tax and the highest taxes? The Keating Government, the Hawke Government-this current Labor Government-is without doubt, factually, the absolutely highest-taxing government this country has ever seen. It defies description. It defies imagination that any government, particularly a Labor Government, can say that it wants to look after everybody and care for the workers when all it is doing is taxing people all the way. Petrol taxes have never been higher. This is the truth. This is the reality. How can they sit there and tell us these lies, these falsehoods? Then the member for Herbert moved further and he said that the Prime Minister-good Lord!-had pledged to initiate the most comprehensive overhaul of road funding. I can tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, this Parliament and the people of Australia, that if that is the most comprehensive overhaul of road funding, by crikey Australia wants its road funding to go in a different direction. He said also that it is the very first time we have had a truly national transport policy, and he said, with great emphasis and feeling, that for the first time under the Hawke Government we have a predictable and assured future for road funding. Let us just consider what that predictable and assured future really is. I would like to refer to a table produced by the Australian Automobile Association, which covers Commonwealth road funding as a proportion of total Commonwealth Budget outlays from 1976-77 to 1986-87. Mr Gayler —In 1976-77? You are getting really up to date now. Mr NEHL —The honourable member might complain that I am going back a few years, but that is all that the Government speakers have done. That is all they ever do. If they want to go back to the past, I will go back to the past with them, because the figures from the past condemn them, especially in the Whitlam years. My earlier figures were only starters. Now come the fireworks. If we look at the record, we see that in 1977-78 the real increase in total funding for roads under the Fraser-Anthony Government was an extra 10.1 per cent. The next year it was an extra 6.3 per cent. The next year, 1979-80, it was up by 11.2 per cent. The next year, 1980-81, it was up another 11.2 per cent. In 1981-82, it was up another 9.1 per cent. How can they possibly sit there, stand there, open their mouths and suggest that the Fraser Government did not provide additional funds for road funding? In 1981-82, it was up 9.1 per cent. Then we come to the 1982-83 and 1983-84 figures. Of course, they are very significant years, because that was when the first money started to flow from the Australian bicentennial roads program. Mr Lloyd —Who introduced that? Mr NEHL —I am about to come to that. One of the Government speakers tonight grandly proclaimed the virtue of the Hawke Government in introducing the bicentennial road program. What a load of nonsense. The man who introduced that was just sitting on my left-the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt)-and he deserves-- Opposition members interjecting- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! The House will come to order. I wish to warn you that the merriment is denigrating into rabble. Will you please come to order. Mr NEHL —Thank you for your protection, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can see that the people on your right need that control. The reality is-there is no confusion about it in the minds of intelligent, sane people-that the bicentennial road funding was started in the Fraser-Anthony Government's time. It was conceived, developed and introduced by the honourable member for Gwydir. The thanks of every person in Australia are due to that man sitting there on the Opposition front bench. In the first year when the bicentennial funds started to flow, we had an increase of 24.2 per cent. The next year, 1983-84, which was the year of Mr Keating's first Budget, very nicely and appropriately for the Australian people the bicentennial road funding money really came on stream, and the increase that year was 40.4 per cent. I know that it suits the political purposes of those sitting on the Government benches to claim: `We did this; we provided an extra 40.4 per cent.' But the reality-most Australians know it-is that that bicentennial road funding money came from the initiative of the honourable member for Gwydir in the Fraser-Anthony Government. The other point that should be made about that is that the 2c a litre all went towards road funding, but when the Hawke Government came in, it indexed the 2c a litre. I suppose that could be reasonable, provided that the money obtained from it went to roads, but is that happening? No. The Government is siphoning off all the extra money and taking it away from roads. Apart from the 1983-84 Budget, when the big boost came from the bicentennial money, what is the record of the so-called world's best Treasurer in his last three Budgets? In 1984-85, the amount of money provided in total for road funding increased by 4.2 per cent. That was the smallest increase since 1977-78. We can see why there is some value occasionally in going back a little into history. In 1985-86, the increase was zero, zilch, nothing. In 1986-87, the percentage increase was again nothing. Yet they have the hide to stand there and say: `Australia, the Hawke Government is saving you'. My goodness gracious me, what a load of nonsense. I seek leave to incorporate this table in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Australian Automobile Association Figures COMMONWEALTH ROAD FUNDING AS A PROPORTION OF TOTAL COMMONWEALTH BUDGET OUTLAYS-1976-77 TO 1986-87 ($ Million) Year Road Grants/ ALTP ABRD Total funding % increase Total outlays Road grants % outlays Total funding % outlays 1976-77... 434 . . 434 0.0 24,023 1.80 1.80 1977-78... 478 . . 478 10.1 26,664 1.79 1.79 1978-79... 508 . . 508 6.3 28,911 1.76 1.76 1979-80... 565 . . 565 11.2 31,444 1.80 1.80 1980-81... 628 . . 628 11.2 35,994 1.74 1.74 1981-82... 685 . . 685 9.1 41,188 1.66 1.66 1982-83... 734 117 851 24.2 48,792 1.50 1.74 1983-84... 778 417 1195 40.4 56,430 1.38 2.12 1984-85... 828 417 1245 4.2 63,712 1.30 1.95 1985-86... 805 440 1245 0.0 69,917 1.15 1.78 1986-87... 805 440 1245 0.0 74,764 1.08 1.67 Mr NEHL —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Minister for his courtesy. This Bill that we are considering tonight seeks to amend the Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Act 1985, and the Bill gives legislative sanction to the announcement of the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) on 12 June 1986 that the Australian land transport program fund would be reduced by $50m in 1986-87, and that this reduction would be achieved by reducing the rate of excise duty payable to the ALTP by 0.235c per litre from 1 July 1986. Clause 3 of the Bill then varied the rate of duty calculated in accordance with section 14 of the principal Act from 3.845c per litre to 3.610c per litre. In addition to the cuts effected by the Bill, the Budget further reduced the funds available to the ALTP by $24m. However, in the case of the Budget cut, the funds have been collected by the Commonwealth in trust funds. The $24m appears as income derived by the Common- wealth which has not been spent. The Budget decision to increase the excise payable on petroleum products and diesel fuel will provide the Commonwealth with an increase in revenue of $625m, thereby boosting excise revenues from petroleum and diesel sources to an estimated $5.6 billion in 1986-87-up 96 per cent on the revenues collected in 1985-86. It is extraordinary that any government can increase the revenues from excise by 96 per cent in one year. I find that absolutely amazing. Mr McVeigh —That would be a world record, wouldn't it? Mr NEHL —It has to be a world record. The Commonwealth is now collecting 23.884c of the cost of every litre of petrol or diesel. The table which I incorporated earlier tells a very interesting story. The financial high point in the roads funding achieved in 1983 was as a result of the National Party's introduction of the ABRD. In the three years of the Labor Government, collections by the Federal Government have risen by 14c per litre of fuel-a 400 per cent increase in the level of previous revenue collections. At present, 25.948c of revenue is collected by the Commonwealth for each litre of fuel, and that includes the additional 2c per litre rise announced by the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, within days of the Budget. This compares most unfavourably with the 10.007c per litre of fuel collected by the Commonwealth as excise or duty at the time of the Budget last year. It represents an increase of 15.941c per litre in revenue collections by the Commonwealth in the last financial year alone. It clearly indicates that this Government-this failed Hawke-Keating Government-is using motorists as a milch cow for revenue. The Commonwealth is not prepared to reinvest funds collected from motorists in roads. In fact, the Australian economy is now hooked on fuel excise and the Hawke Government is mainlining on petrol taxes. What are some of the economic costs of the decision to cut road funds by $74m? There is the loss of 6,512 new jobs. That figure is based on the Australian road system study by the National Association of Australian State Road Authorities, which found that, for every $1m spent on roads, 88 jobs were created. This decision to cut funding for roads has cost 2,738 jobs in road construction, 1,036 jobs in allied supply industries, and a further 2,738 jobs in other industrial sectors. That should be compared with the number of new jobs created in the tourist industry for the expenditure of $1m. Twenty-six jobs are created in the tourist industry for the expenditure of every $1m, but 88 jobs are created for the expenditure of that amount on roads. The cutback in road funding will maintain unnecessarily high costs of freight and will work totally adversely to the benefit of Australia and all Australians. I support the Opposition's amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Lee) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Peter Morris) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(10.13) —In the adjournment debate tonight I want to talk briefly about the concept of multiculturalism and the importance to Australia of the extent to which this Government has let down the migrant community by largely terminating the English as a second language program. I think it is important that people understand what multiculturalism means, because it is the concept by which we talk of the important respect that people have for the values, culture and background of people from different countries who have settled in Australia. It is not separatism, as some people often seek to advance. Certainly, one of the most important programs designed to ensure that multiculturalism is not separatism is that in which migrants are encouraged and aided to be able to speak English and to communicate within our community. This is a very strong view held by migrants whom I have met over the time that I have been in public life. It is evidenced by the desire of migrants, when they settle in Australia, to learn English and, particularly, the aspirations that they have for their children and their families in the Australian community. It was therefore with great alarm that I learnt in the Budget that the Government had decided to reduce by almost half the amount of funding available for the teaching of English as a second language-the ESL program. It has been most distressing to migrants, their families and the teachers who are involved in assisting such young people to overcome the very significant disadvantage that they suffer. Budgets are always a difficult question. It has always seemed to me that it is a matter of priorities. If priorities had to be determined in the cutting back of government expenditure in the education area, there are much more fundamental areas, I think, in which changes could have been made than the area of these ESL programs. I would have seen it as being most important to maintain those programs. In order that one can see this in perspective, I think one should look at one of the Government's own reports on this matter. I quote from the report of the Karmel Quality of Education Review Committee, in relation to the funding of programs in this area: The immigration program brings to Australia each year a sizable number of students who have minimal or no proficiency in English on their arrival. Their need for intensive instruction in the English language is immediate and obvious. Without access to English they are deprived of access to education and to an alien culture. Within the group there are those whose pressing needs extend beyond English language instruction because they are illiterate in their mother tongue. These tend to be young people with refugee status who have received no schooling in their homeland or whose schooling has been seriously interrupted. The Commonwealth, which is involved in bringing migrants to Australia, in inviting them to settle here, has a special responsibility in this area. The maintenance of these programs is of the utmost importance. I do not think the States, which will have the responsibility of ensuring that these programs are maintained, will see that they have the same responsibility in this area. I suspect that these programs will be sacrificed when the States have to examine their own priorities. In particular, the smaller States may not have had the same experience in these areas. Some schools which offer these programs, such as those in my own electorate, have small classes. Sometimes only 30 or 40 children in a school require special assistance through the English as a second language tuition program. These schools will be particularly disadvantaged and are more likely to see those programs terminated as a result of the need to save funds in this area. It has been suggested that in New South Wales up to 30,000 children may be disadvantaged through these programs being discontinued and through the lack of access to English as a second language program. It has also been noted that it may lead to a significant number of migrant students having their schooling terminated early if programs of this sort are not available. These cuts that have been made by the Federal Government run counter to advice that the Commonwealth has received through the Schools Commission to increase the amount of funding available in this area and not make a reduction. I must say that I share the view of migrants and teaching authorities who have commented on these decisions that the Government in its more recent steps has been in the business of obfuscation rather than clarification of the situation. One can only describe the Government's more recent announcement as an insulting confidence trick in relation to the migrants and young people who are in need of this very special service. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(10.18) —This House is too commonly a forum for destructive conflict. Disputes are sometimes created artificially, as they were by the Opposition this afternoon, to attempt to achieve a perceived tactical advantage. But the result commonly is simply to undermine the authority of parliament in the community. There is also, however, much constructive discussion. Tonight I want to mention some centrally important good news for the people of the Australian Capital Territory. The Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) today released the economic report for the Territory for the June quarter. That report shows that there has been particularly rapid growth of employment in Canberra during the last year. In 1985-86 the number of people in employment in the Territory increased by 8 per cent, by 9,600 people. This is a remarkable increase. To provide a point of contrast I mention that the Australian population is growing by about 1.6 per cent a year. Total employment in the whole of Australia increased last year by 5.3 per cent, which was itself a remarkable achievement. National employment growth at this pace is the result of successful economic policies. Moderately expansionary fiscal and monetary policies, combined with falling labour costs, resulted in substantial economic and employment growth. The particularly rapid growth of employment in Canberra was influenced by both this national trend and the stimulus given to the local economy by public expenditure. There was substantial growth of employment in public administration and defence. A significant contribution came from the opening of the new Australian Defence Force Academy. Employment remains strong in house building and construction. In the year to March the value of building and construction work totalled $715m, of which about 30 per cent was for private and public housing, 15 per cent was for offices and 16 per cent was for the new Parliament House. That high level of building and construction activity stimulated growth and employment in other industries such as the wholesale and retail trade, manufacturing and community services. The strong employment growth has reduced unemployment. In the June quarter it was down to 4.6 per cent, and only half of those unemployed were looking for full time work. Youth unemployment, too, is low. Most 15 to 19-year olds are attending school, college or university. Of those who are in the work force, the present unemployment rate is 19 per cent, which is about the same as the national average. This is high and of great concern, and continuing to reduce that rate must have a high priority. However, two-thirds of the youth unemployed are looking for part time work. It is clear that many if not most of these are students wanting to supplement their income. Total unemployment is low and it is falling despite the fact that the population of the Australian Capital Territory grew last year by 4.5 per cent. The proportion of the adult population now in the work force-what is called the participation rate-is 73 per cent, compared with the national rate of 62 per cent. This makes the achievement even more remarkable. I have concentrated on employment and unemployment because these are central concerns in Australia. The issue to which most Australians would like the Government to give high priority is employment. There has been rapid growth in employment throughout Australia for the past three years and unemployment has fallen significantly, but it remains a serious problem. There are still over 600,000 people who want to work and are actively looking for work but who are unable to find a job. For these people, unemployment involves poverty and often loss of personal dignity. No community can be satisfied with this situation. The Government and the whole community must make employment growth one of its top priorities. This is a difficult task but the last three years have shown that progress is possible. The principal requirement is a strong commitment to the goal of reducing unemployment. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(10.22) —I suppose it is true that the adjournment debate occasionally generates into the playing of party politics. I seek not to follow that course tonight. I believe it is appropriate, however, that we take the opportunities that are available to back benchers to set the record straight. That is what I seek to do tonight. I wish to tell you, Madam Speaker, that I told the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) that I wanted to correct four errors of fact in his answer to a question yesterday. I can understand, having been in the killing pen myself, how easy it is not to give correct figures. I would never plead guilty, of course, to having given incorrect figures. I shall quote from the Minister's reply to a question. Seeing that it came from the honourable member for Greenway (Mr Gorman), I do not want to imply that it was a dorothy dixer. At page 1117 the Minister said: Therefore, I wonder whether we should believe that the Surf Life Saving Association, which this year is to get $1m from this Government to continue its work, should go back to the $100,000 they used to give it, or that the Royal Life Saving Society, which is charged with teaching Australian kids how to swim, can look forward to going back to $100,000 instead of the $350,000 it will get this year. The same thing can be repeated in respect of a dozen other organisations. I suppose our Olympic athletes will go back to running chook raffles, like they used to do during the term of office of the previous Government, so that they can attend Olympic games, whereas under this Government they receive $1.4m. That passage contains four errors of fact. Contrary to what the Minister said, the Surf Life Saving Association did not receive $100,000 in the year of my stewardship, in 1982. I refer to the Budget statement of 1982-83 and I shall be quite happy to table this and other documents. The statement makes it clear that the Association received $400,000. That is one error of fact. The Minister said in his reply that the Royal Life Saving Society-this was in reply to the dorothy dixer-received $100,000 from the Government of which I was a member. The Budget statement shows that it received $200,000. That is the second error of fact. Very importantly, the Minister said that his Government gave $1.4m to the Olympic athletes. The Budget statements of 1982-83, the year of my stewardship, state that $0.5m of special assistance was provided as the first instalment of a $1.4m program towards team preparation for the 1984 Olympic Games. It was a commitment and a gift from the Fraser-Anthony Government, which the Hawke Administration honoured. That is the third error of fact. The Minister said also that the Royal Life Saving Society is charged with teaching kids to swim. I have the charter of the Society and nowhere does it say that it is charged with that responsibility. That is the fourth error of fact. I want to bring to the notice of the House-- Mr Robert Brown —Trivia. Mr McVEIGH —If the honourable member thinks sport is trivia, so be it. We know of the commitment of athletes to their sports and I think that it is time that we gave due credit for results achieved and the generosity shown by previous governments. The Minister, in answer to a dorothy dixer-I am not saying that he misled the House-gave incorrect information. I seek leave to table the documents to which I have referred. I do not do this in any spirit of ill will. I just want to have the record set straight. I am not accusing the Minister of having misled the House. Mr McGauran —Well, I am. Mr McVEIGH —I am not. I am far too charitable for that. I just want the record set straight. I seek leave to table the documents to which I have referred. Leave granted. Mr McVEIGH —The Minister did not give the correct information. I wish merely to say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I know that you hope that your team wins on Sunday, and I wish it the best of Irish luck. Money is not the sum total of existence. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable gentleman's time has expired. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(10.27) —For a couple of months we have been hearing, particularly from Opposition members, forecasts of doom and gloom that have been based on what is happening in the economy. We have been told that we are heading to a recession. Opposition members have been guilty particularly of pushing that point of view. They have been suggesting that those whom they support and represent-the business community-are right behind them in suggesting that the economy is heading for a recession. I would like to point out to those Opposition members that they should take heed of an article that appeared in the Bulletin last week, dated 23 September, under the heading, `Corporate chiefs scotch talk of recession'. I am sure that many Opposition members have not had the opportunity to read the article and I wish selectively to pull out some points of view that are set out in it. I refer first to Sir Peter Abeles, managing director of the TNT company. He was asked for his view of Australia's economy and whether it was heading for a recession. He said: I do not agree a recession is necessarily there. It will depend, of course, half on our own actions and half on the rest of the world's economy. He was drawing attention to the very things which the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has been saying. He was saying that many of the things that have been faced by the Australian economy in recent times have been caused by external factors. He added: If they- that is a reference to the forecasters, the economic geniuses that pervade our society- say business will be subdued I would agree with that-but do not forget we have had some very big years. He was asked what action was needed to avert any likelihood of recession and he replied that in non-political but factual terms the average Australian had to understand that we have to compete with the world. He added: We must knock on every door a hundred times and sell. That is exactly the message that the Government is endeavouring to get across to those in the business community. What did John Saunders, the joint managing director of Westfield Holdings Ltd, have to say on this issue? The article states: . . . he definitely didn't agree a recession was imminent. He said: I'm prepared to bet my bottom dollar that if interest rates come down two percent a month before Christmas we'll see a Christmas trading boom. Everybody is trying to paint a picture of gloom which has made people and particularly consumers nervous. The article continues: Saunders's assessment of confidence in the business community is based in large measure on the demand for space in the group's shopping centres. He said: At Chatswood we have 622 applicants for 130 shops; at Pagewood we have 700 applicants for 150 shops. He went on to say: We must remember we are not the only country having problems selling wheat, sugar and minerals. It doesn't matter what politicians are in Canberra, they would all have the same problems. I think that is a very good attitude to take. The honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh) made reference to a bipartisan approach to sport. That is exactly the sort of point being made by those in big business in relation to the problems facing Australia. They are providing constructive suggestions as to how we might overcome our difficulties. I would like to refer also to some comments made by Brian Loton, the Managing Director and Chief Executive of Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. I am pleased to see that my colleagues the honourable members for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown), Throsby (Mr Hollis) and Hughes (Mr Tickner) are in the chamber tonight, as well as the honourable member for Cunningham, the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) as we all represent steel producing areas. Brian Loton, when referring to the likelihood of a recession, said: It depends what is meant by recession. We would not expect negative growth because we agree with the government that net exports will make a substantial contribution to growth in 1986-87. The Treasurer has said it. The Budget Papers say that that is the case. Here we have BHP's Managing Director and Chief Executive suggesting that that is exactly the position. Obviously, there is no lack of confidence in the economy, because BHP is investing incredible amounts of money in industry in Wollongong and Newcastle and, indeed, it hopes to start a mini steel mill in the western suburbs-I hope it will reconsider that and put it in Wollongong-and so, too, are many of the other major business concerns in Australia. They are not agreeing with the gloom and doom mentality of the Opposition. They are saying that we can trade our way our of this position, that we can invest and eventually see the Australian economy return to a position of strength. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WILSON(Sturt)(10.33) —For some years now the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal has been criticised for its lack of practical and economic understanding of the industry operations under its supervision. In April 1984 it announced in its publication Abtee that there was to be a review of its information needs. This was a response to the well-known criticisms of the way the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal was carrying out its responsibilities. These weaknesses had been long standing and were acknowledged in the final reports of the old Australian Broadcasting Control Board. On 19 April 1984, the ABT publicly announced that it had commissioned Professor Neil Runcie to conduct a review. The Press release said: The Tribunal considers itself extremely fortunate in securing Professor Runcie's services, especially considering his extensive knowledge and experience in economic and statistical matters and close personal interest in the electronic media. Why, then, were Professor Runcie's recommendations hidden from public scrutiny? In view of the public announcement of the review, the public would have expected a public report of the outcome of the review. The report was apparently due by 30 June 1984, but there was not mention of it in the 1984 or 1985 annual reports of the ABT. With some difficulty I have obtained a copy of the summary volume. The ABT was not forthcoming when I sought this report and it was necessary for me, as a member of parliament, to use the Freedom of Information Act to prise it out of the ABT. In contrast with the public fanfare given to the commissioning of the review, the receipt of the report and its contents have been kept very quiet. No wonder-because to make the report public would expose the ABT's serious internal weaknesses. The preamble of the Runcie report points out that: to undertake economic analysis in the Australian broadcasting system three elements the ABT requires: (i) an organised database; (ii) a body of economic studies of the broadcasting industries, and; (iii) qualified persons to apply economic perceptions and tools to the many broadcasting problems requiring government decisions. The ABT is lacking in all of these areas. Professor Runcie also said that the information requirements of the ABT are wider than economic data, as the electronic media affect every aspect of our educational, social entertainment and cultural activities. In a biting comment at the end of the report, Professor Runcie says: Indeed, the ABT has been likened to `Dad's Army' fighting imaginary battles with out-of-date equipment and getting in the way of the main broadcasting battalions. There is substance to these criticisms and the ABT must guard against the entropic effect of its `closed system', created by its excessively legalistic nature. He goes on to say: Throughout this report I have advocated a multi-disciplinary research programme to open up, as it were, the `closed system', thereby helping the ABT to serve better its functions and the Australian community. The Runcie report documents many of the weaknesses in the present system and lists over 120 recommendations. It criticises the Coffs Harbour inquiry which was confused, costly and lengthy, confirming the need for more systematic information gathering from established stations as well as applicants for licences. The Broadcasting and Television Act places a clear responsibility on the ABT to act as an information collecting body for the community, not just itself. The Runcie report expresses doubt about the ABT's fulfilment of this role. It strongly criticises the chaotic state of reporting by public broadcasters due to the confusing and inadequately designed forms used by the ABT. I ask the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) four questions: Has he read this report? Why has the ABT been so secretive about it? Has it implemented the recommendations of the report? If not, why not? Ms McHUGH(Phillip)(10.36) —I rise to speak, as so many of us have so often in the past, on behalf of the people of Chile, who have suffered now for 13 years under the repressive regime of the military dictatorship of General Pinochet. It is now 13 years since that dictatorship overtook the democratic processes in Chile. The torture, the killings, the imprisonments and the disappearances in Chile over those years have been well documented by groups such as Amnesty International. On Sunday 7 September 1986, after the attempt on the life of General Pinochet, the military regime reimposed the state of siege. The result of that has been a very much increased imposition of the repressive mechanisms of that regime. This has worsened the effect felt by the people of Chile. To make the Australian public and the Australian Government more aware of what is happening in Chile, 11 young Chilean refugees in Australia began a hunger strike on 10 September, in Sydney, Melbourne and Perth. Since 4 p.m. on 10 September they have been refusing food. Six of those young Chileans are still fasting. Representatives of the Chilean youth came to Canberra today to make us aware of why their colleagues are undertaking that fearful way of showing the Australian public just how bad the repressive regime in Chile is. I read to the House the following statement that those young people put out: Without any doubt, the reintroduction of the state of siege is just another measure used by the Chilean regime to increase its repression against those who oppose the dictatorship, and a way of openly arresting leaders of political and social organisations. In less than 24 hours, after the reinstatement of the state of siege, hundreds of people were arrested,- this is just in the last few weeks- some of whose whereabouts are not known, there have been massive and selective house searches, specially in shanty towns, all forms of meeting are banned. There is total censorship of the press, personal mail is intercepted and interfered with and any person who is arrested risks . . . exile and disappearance. Amongst those who have been killed is Jose Carrasco, a member of the National Body of the Journalists Union. He was found dead on Monday the 8th in a street in Santiago. He had been shot in the head 10 times. Amongst those who have disappeared are the President of the Popular Democratic Movement, a clergyman and member of the executive body of the Popular Democratic Movement, members of the Democratic Alliance and a number of leaders of the teachers union. Eight priests have been arrested in the last few weeks and most of those arrested were taken away in front of witnesses as were four students who were abducted by the CNI, the secret police, from a Dutch diplomatic car. Recently, with members of Amnesty International, I visited the Chilean Ambassador in Canberra to protest against the regime in Chile. We did not have to suffer the sort of thing that goes on in Chile when we made diplomatic representations. The Chilean youth resident in Australia have asked several questions of the Australian Government and the Australian people. They have asked the Australian Government, through a public statement, to condemn and denounce the recent escalation of repression imposed since the reinstatement of the state of seige. They protest and question the presence of the Chilean representatives in Australia who recently have made statements to the effect that everything in their country is all right and that the situation is the fault of those who are arrested. Is it the fault of the eight priests who were arrested recently? They call on the Government to interrupt the subsidies given to the private sector if it maintains economic ties with Chile. They call on the World Council of Churches to make a public statement regarding the latest wave of repression and violation of human rights inflicted upon the Chilean people and the Chilean church. They call upon the citizens of Australia to denounce the repression and come out in solidarity with the Chilean cause through their respective organisations, and I join them. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(10.41) —I have come into the chamber to participate in this adjournment debate following an outburst just a few minutes ago from the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham). As the Acting Government Whip he challenged the role of the Opposition Whip and expressed his concern and indeed criticised the Opposition's tactic in having alerted you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the absence in the House of sufficient members to form a quorum. I rise tonight to express my indignation that members of the Government should see a quorum as some form of punishment. Those who serve in this chamber ought to recognise that the requirement that one-third of the members of the Parliament be present is not an unreasonable demand to make. There are those who have said-as did the honourable member for McMillan-that the calling of quorums by the Opposition has been done in an irresponsible and bloody-minded fashion. For as long as I have been the Deputy Opposition Whip-indeed as long as I have been a member of the Opposition-I have not known quorums to be called in either a bloody-minded or irresponsible fashion. Every member of the Government ought to know that there has never been a quorum called by this Opposition which was not first precipitated by a member of the Government abusing Question Time. There are those who will raise their voices in indignation but five minutes is not an unreasonable period to be set aside to answer a question. It is as much time as the House makes available for a speaker to participate in an adjournment debate. At no time-I stress this-has a quorum been called in this House without it first being precipitated by a Minister taking more than five minutes to answer a question. I take up the point made by the honourable member opposite. The calling of a quorum is not intended as a punishment but Government members seem to see it as such and so the honourable member for McMillan expressed indignation about it. If honourable members want an illustration of the even-handed approach by the Opposition Whip to this whole exercise I will tell them that yesterday, in what was an impeccable performance by Government Ministers, no quorums were tripped. Inevitably, in the heat of the chamber, there are those who, from time to time, call a quorum without the Whip being aware of its happening. I have no doubt it has happened no matter who has occupied the Opposition benches. Nonetheless, there is such a reservoir of uncalled quorums in the Opposition Whip's office that if it went on forever it would not matter. The calling of quorums is decided each day and no quorums are ever called prior to Question Time, nor are any called unless Ministers take more than five minutes to answer a question. If the honourable member for McMillan felt that today's exercise was a little hard for the soft-centred Government members to take, let me remind him that after six minutes he tripped two quorums, after seven minutes three and a good deal more could have been called. I restate the case. It is an indictment on the Government to see the calling of quorums as some sort of imposition on it. It seems that this Government has been anxious to avoid the scrutiny of the House. I am pleased that the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) is in the House this evening because he has accused the Opposition in the past of declaring Bills urgent Bills more frequently than he has. Such an accusation is nonsense, and any survey of the figures will indicate that the Hawke Government has declared Bills urgent far more often than did the Fraser or Whitlam governments. The Whitlam Government declared urgent an average of 20 Bills per year, the Fraser Government two and the Hawke Government 16-a case, I fear, of this House and its Standing Orders once again having been conveniently abused by the people who occupy the government seats. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(10.46) —I have to rise in view of the comments of the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew), who reported to the House a discussion I held, in my capacity as Acting Whip, with the Opposition Whip. It has become quite obvious in dealings between one Whip's office and another that the Opposition calls quorums unnecessarily. This evening the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) was let loose to call two quorums on one of our speakers. Seven Government members spoke tonight and every one of them had a quorum called in his speech. Being the Acting Whip, I took it upon myself to question the Opposition Whip as to why the Opposition was breaking the sensible arrangements that are negotiated between one Whip's office and another in order to have a smooth running of the House. I believe that we on this side are quite amicable towards the Opposition. It has a right to be heard and, as far as the Government and the Leader of the House (Mr Young) are concerned, we are quite willing to have open debate as is expected in this place. However, as the honourable member for Wakefield has sought tonight to use the chamber as a forum to talk about negotiations that have taken place between the two Whips, I might take a completely different view and have discussions with the Leader of the House in future. Tonight every time Government members stood to exercise their right to speak in this House, quorums were called with the express purpose of disrupting them. We all know that under the Standing Orders the Opposition does not bother to come in when it calls a quorum; it leaves that to the Government. But it makes an excuse. The Opposition claims that it has written a new standing order into the books because- Mr Connolly —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member is quite obviously threatening the Opposition in what he is saying. I suggest that that is a breach of privilege. There is no question that he is threatening the Opposition. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr CUNNINGHAM —It appears that the Opposition is writing a new standing order of its own. It is incapable of using Question Time effectively to challenge the Government on any policy at all. It is claiming that when a Minister is required to give an answer he should be set a time limit. I do not find anywhere in the Standing Orders that a Minister is required, by the Opposition in particular, to answer a question in a particular time. Yet tonight I was informed by the Opposition Whip, in a threatening way and it has been repeated tonight by the honourable member for Wakefield, that if Ministers go beyond a certain time the Opposition will disrupt Government speakers every time they get to their feet. If that is not a threat, I do not know what is. The Opposition Whip stood in my office tonight and told me bluntly that, if our Ministers did not obey a new standing order that they want to impose, they will disrupt our speakers time and again. This is an Opposition that cannot get its message through at Question Time. I have copies here of the answers given to questions asked by the Opposition and asked by the Government that required lengthy answers. The Opposition set the criteria at Question Time today. Would the House like me to go through them again? I certainly could not do it in five minutes. In an answer by the Leader of the House time was put to good use. Certainly he used more than five minutes. One could speak for one hour on the number of people on the Opposition side who have used and abused the parliamentary position that they have held here over many years. The Opposition has not heard the last of that issue if it wants to use these tactics in the future. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(10.51) —The matter I wish to raise tonight concerns the harnessing of Australia's water resources. It has concerned me for a number of years. There has not been sufficient finance to further water conservation. At the present, I do not think we should accept the fact that our markets for primary industry are not good throughout the world as a reason why we should not use more funds generally for these most important projects. I realise that although it is the responsibility of the States to undertake these projects, over the years it has been the responsibility of the Commonwealth to undertake such projects as the Snowy Mountains scheme, and the Burdekin Dam in Queensland. Nevertheless, it is our responsibility as the main collector of funds in Australia to see that we have more money available for the development of this great continent. No matter what state our markets are in, no matter what state the economy is in, we will still be dependent upon the products from the farm to earn the wealth for this great nation of ours. Therefore, it is so important that we should not be left behind in the development of water conservation in our streams and our dam sites throughout Australia. Not only are these resources used for irrigation on farms but they are used also in many cases for domestic purposes. There is also a challenge today for the farmer to grow alternative crops, most of which are smaller crops such as oilseeds, maize, lucerne or other crops for which there may be markets within Australia and overseas. To be able to produce these crops at a reasonable cost it is essential that farmers have water for irrigation. If one goes to America, Europe, or most primary industry countries throughout the world one finds that those countries have harnessed all the resources that they possibly can. In the western water district of California, in Sierra Nevada, there are about 250 dams which have been filled by melting snow. We do not have that quantity of snow here; we are not as lucky as America or other countries. We have done what we can with the snow we have in developing the Snowy Mountains scheme. But we have other natural areas which we can harness. We have rivers running into the sea and we can divert water from one area to another. These things can be done economically. All the States have done a magnificent job in many respects. The State Ministers for water conservation have been restricted because they have not had the funds available. There is a tendency today-particularly for the Commonwealth and for most of the States-to disregard our great challenge to develop water resources. It is a challenge that we, as responsible people, cannot afford to let go. If we are to sustain our primary industries-42 per cent of our exports depend on what is termed `off the farm'-and if we are to meet the challenge of the economy of this nation over the years to come, we must meet that responsibility and divert more of these important funds into the great natural resources that we have in Australia. Not only are dams such as the Keepit Dam used for irrigation and domestic supply but they are used also for tourism. Mr Hodgman —Correct. Mr COWAN —I am sure there are such dams in Tasmania. Most of these dams are a tremendous attraction for skiing, boating, and most forms of sport. In this way they are very important to Australia. I am very pleased to raise this matter before the House. We have to keep in mind that, no matter who sits on the treasury bench, the challenge is before them. Our minds should not be diverted by other unproductive projects which may take their place. Ms MAYER(Chisholm)(10.56) —I am appalled at the outrageous hypocrisy of the Opposition members in this House. Time after time honourable members on that side of the House have uttered pious platitudes about the value of family life, yet when a Minister arranges that his family should not be left alone for many days at a time, the Opposition attacks him. Does the Treasurer (Mr Keating) have to neglect his family, have his young children grow up without a father, in order to do his job? Are Opposition members guilty because they choose politics before their children, or are they simply applying their usual double standard? This afternoon the Treasurer reminded the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) of a simple fact. If the Treasurer had sent his family back to Sydney, the Opposition would not have even raised this issue. If the Treasurer's wife and young children lived in Sydney while he worked his usual six to seven day week in Canberra it would not have attacked him at all. Who raised this issue? It was the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham), who moved his family to Brisbane so that he could be with them more often. He said, and I quote from the Sunday Territorian of 22 December 1985: I am trying to fix up my personal life so that the people who depend on me are in the best personal situation . . . If I were a solicitor it would be different, but I am a Federal member who's away a lot. If the honourable member for the Northern Territory believes that he can live in Brisbane and still represent his Northern Territory constituents, if my neighbours the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) and the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) can live well outside their electorates and still represent their constituents, I have no argument with that. If I have some concern about it I am prepared to accept that their families are best served by those somewhat unusual arrangements. What I do object to is a personal attack on a member of this Government for exercising the same concern for his family. Sauce for the honourable member for the Northern Territory is not apparently sauce for the Treasurer, and yet there is no doubt about whose contribution to the nation is the more important. Australians have little time for the person who plays the man and not the ball. They have even less time for out and out hypocrites who say one thing and do another. Every time an Opposition member talks about the value of the family from now on, every Australian will be reminded that these are the people who wanted to separate the Treasurer from his family. These are the people who wanted the person carrying one of the nation's most important and demanding jobs to neglect his family. These are the people who wanted young children to grow up without their father. These are the people who put the family last in their priorities. What the Opposition hates is that a man can be a brilliant Treasurer and a good husband and father. What does the Opposition want? Do members of the Opposition want everyone to conform to their doubtful standard because they are inadequate? Do they want to encourage the break up of families of members and Ministers? Do they have no respect at all for the values of family life? Do they care so little about the responsibilities of a growing family that they want those responsibilities carried by one parent? Are they totally without shame? Unfortunately the simple answer to all those questions is yes. No pretence is too great to stick in their throats. No double standard is too disgraceful for them to defend. No mud is too dirty to be thrown, and no ditch is too slimy to deter them. One really has to have a strong stomach to sit in this House and listen to the Opposition, an Opposition whose members are incapable of producing policies that are not laughable, who substitute personal attack for their abysmal failure as policy makers, whose tactics match their characters, who plumb the depths of the political gutters and who want to rise like the phoenix from the ashes of their own incapacity. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! It being 11 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Hurford to present at the next sitting a Bill for an Act to amend the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Act 1985. Mr Hurford to present at the next sitting a Bill for an Act to amend the Reserve Bank Act 1959 and the Banking Act 1959.