Wednesday, 8 October 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Debate resumed from 7 October, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Upon which Mr Carlton had moved by way of amendment: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for- (1) its failure to control Government spending to the point where it has broken its `Trilogy' commitment to hold taxation to no more than 25 per cent of gross domestic product and proceeded to tax Australians to the highest point in our history; (2) it contempt for ordinary taxpayers, illustrated by its decision to charge a $200 fee for appeals against rulings by the Commissioner of Taxation regardless of the size or complexity of the claim; (3) its incompetent handling of the withholding tax issue, where the Government changed the tax rules, caused a run on the dollar, and retreated 27 days later, and its disgraceful treatment of the Defence Forces Reserves, by withdrawing the tax free status of reservist's pay thereby causing a grave rundown of reserve forces and damage to their morale and effectiveness, and now having belatedly to restore the concession'. Madam SPEAKER —Before the debate is resumed on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1986, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this Bill and the Bank Account Debits Tax Amendment Bill 1986. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(10.01) —When I was interrupted last night by the adjournment debate I was speaking on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) and the Bank Account Debits Tax Amendment Bill. I made the point that the Government was having to levy an additional $90m in tax on people's bank accounts because of its desperate search for revenue which resulted from its extreme overspending. I pointed out that since the Hawke Government came to power it had almost doubled taxation in only four years and that the personal income tax cuts that it had promised from 1 December were quite meaningless for lower and middle income groups after allowance was made for inflation. If one also took into account the additional 14c a litre in petrol tax, those so-called taxation cuts were thoroughly meaningless. I also drew the attention of the House to the introduction of a $200 fee for anybody wishing to challenge a ruling of the Commissioner of Taxation. This fee has been increased from $2 to $200. I pointed out that this would have the most severe effect on the smallest taxpayers. It would also have a severe effect on small business partnerships in the case of the appeals, where each member of a partnership would have to pay $200. A partnership of a man and a wife in small business will have to pay $400 to challenge a ruling of the Taxation Commissioner. The situation in respect of trusts will be even worse and I gave some examples of that. I also pointed out the fiasco that occurred on interest withholding tax. At the beginning of July the Treasurer (Mr Keating) made the most ill-advised changes to interest withholding tax as it affected widely held securities, including bearer bonds. This action occurred at the worst possible time for the Australian dollar in international financial markets. The international financial markets reacted most adversely, the dollar plunged by a full US6c over July and on 28 July there was a dramatic free fall of the dollar. In a major panic, the Government announced the reversal of its decision of 1 July. This was yet another example of on the run decision-making by a Treasurer under a state of panic. In the remainder of my time I wish to deal with the question of taxation of the pay and allowances of the defence forces reserves. This is one of the grubbiest episodes in the history of this Government. Since 1964 up till the time the Hawke Government came to power, the pay and allowances of members of the defence forces reserves were untaxed. The reasoning behind that, as explained in 1964 by the Menzies Government, was that we wanted the very best people in Australia to be in our reserve forces and we wanted them to be equipped, should there be an outbreak of hostilities, to combine with the regular forces in the defence of Australia. These people were the achievers in our community who would already, presumably, be paying fairly high marginal rates of tax outside. The rationale behind not taxing defence services reservists' pay was to ensure that, when those people gave their free time, their weekends and some of their holidays to work with the reserve forces, they would at least be getting some reasonable financial recompense for doing so. This went on for nearly 20 years and the reserve forces were left in extremely good shape by the Fraser Government. In the 1983 Budget it was announced that the concession on defence forces reservists' pay would be phased out-50 per cent on 1 December 1983, and the remainder on 1 December 1984. There was an enormous outcry at this and it became very clear that the effects of this on the reserve forces would be severe. Let us go back in time a little to February 1980, when the Fraser Government announced that the Army Reserve would be increased from its then 22,000. A target of 30,000 was then set for the Army Reserve. By 1981 the posted strength of the Army Reserve was, indeed, 33,000 and the effective strength around 30,000, in line with the target. Those numbers were maintained and, I might say, the morale of the reserve forces was maintained-through 1982 and into 1983. The Budget statement, when the Hawke Government decided to remove the tax concession for reserve forces, of course, was made in August 1983. In October 1983 the Government compounded the felony by suspending advertising for the reserve forces. From December 1983, when the 50 per cent tax disallowance took effect, the numbers in the reserve forces started to plummet. So we had a situation in which reserve forces of 33,000 in the Army were passed on to the Hawke Government; by 30 June 1985 the reserve forces had gone down from 33,000 to 23,673. Mr White —Absolutely decimated. Mr CARLTON —That really means, as my friend the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), a former military officer and Vietnam veteran, reminds me, these forces were absolutely decimated by this Government. Not only was the tax situation changed but also the amount of money allowed for training was reduced. The number of training days that the reserve forces could engage in with the Army was reduced very substantially in the first year of the Hawke Government. One wonders what exactly was the objective of that attack on the reserve forces. Was it some sop for the Left of the Australian Labor Party, which is totally against any form of satisfactory national defence, or was it some other purpose, such as merely cost cutting? I cannot believe that it was merely for a cost-cutting purpose. It was a totally counterproductive action. It was a shameful action, in my view, and this point was very adequately made in a debate on a matter of public importance last year in which the honourable member for Bruce (Mr Aldred) and the honourable member for Casey (Mr Halverson) from this side of the House participated. If honour- able members want to see the full story of this disgraceful episode I ask them to go back to the Hansard of that debate of, I think, May last year when my friends the honourable member for Bruce and the honourable member for Casey made their most telling remarks. The Government got into a bit of a panic on this matter in 1985. What did it do? It decided to do the kind of thing that it normally does when it is in trouble-the sort of thing which it now knows does not work but which in those days it hoped would work. It thrust the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on to the advertising screen, on television. It also decided to spend $2.5m on the Prime Minister's advertising. The effect of all this was that recruiting into the reserves plummeted even further. What happened? After the Prime Minister had gone on to the television screens in his advertising campaign, at a cost of $2.5m, the Army Reserve numbers plummeted by 528 over the year and in fact to August 1986 the figure was down by 719. An amount of $2.5m was spent to support the Prime Minister in a national advertising campaign and he reduced the size of the armed services reserves by 719. All I can say is that this demonstrates very clearly that the Prime Minister has no more capacity to convince the Australian people of an argument than he has of convincing the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott) that his uranium policy is correct. The honourable member for Hindmarsh is in the chamber at the moment but he was not here for the second half of the Treasurer's Budget Speech earlier this year because he walked out in protest against the Hawke policy on uranium. At least he stands for something and I admire him for that. This reminds me of the Priority One campaign. Honourable members may recall that the Government got into trouble over youth unemployment. Youth unemployment has risen from about 5 per cent in the early 1970s to about 22 per cent now, and it shows no sign of being reduced. At a cost of some millions of dollars, the Prime Minister announced on television the Priority One program. Millions of dollars were spent on advertising, with a target for youth employment of 10,000 over the period. After five months of the program not even 1,000 people were on the books. In the case of the Prime Minister's recruiting for the armed services reserves, when he had actually cut their pay by reducing the tax concession and they knew that he had cut their pay, the numbers plummeted by 700. What the Government is doing today is reversing the decision of 1983. It has taken three full years to do this-three full years of disgrace as far as our reserve forces are concerned. It was pointed out to be absurd when it was introduced. Only now is the Government turning turtle on this and reversing its original absurd position. Obviously, the Opposition supports this but it points out the hypocrisy of this Government towards the defence services. It particularly points out the disgraceful episode of the armed forces reserves. Madam SPEAKER —Is the amendment seconded? Mr White —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(10.13) —It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak in this debate because the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1986 and the Bank Account Debits Tax Amendment Bill 1986 form part of the overall Budget package of changes that we made to a number of taxation measures. The Bank Account Debits Tax Amendment Bill gives effect to the Budget proposal which simply increases the general rate of the bank account debits tax. The more important Bill before the House today, a very wide ranging Bill in its nature, is the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) which makes a number of amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act. As I have said, these are basically Budget Bills. They give effect to Budget measures-measures taken in a Budget which in many ways was historic in terms of post-war economic history in Australia. I say that it was an historic Budget because it was framed in the circum-stances in which this country had received an enormous reduction in the prices people overseas were paying for our exports, particularly of basic mining and agricultural commodities. In this Budget the Government has set the framework for an environment in which we could adjust to changed economic circumstances and to take positive steps to allow new investment and job growth. Opposition members make light of the fact of change in world economic circumstances. They tend to say that any problems occurring in the Australian economy are simply the fault of this Government and bear no relationship to external factors. Let me give the House a few examples of what has happened to some prices of goods Australia has traded overseas over the last five years. For instance, in the last five years coal prices have fallen by 28 per cent, and in anybody's language that is a large reduction. The price of wheat over that period is down by 27 per cent. The price of wool between 1981-82 and 1986-87 has fallen 22 per cent. The price of alumina has fallen, as has the price of aluminium, which is down 28 per cent. In the last five years the price of beef has fallen by 24 per cent. The price of oil is down 60 per cent. I could go on, but I will not make that imposition on my Labor colleagues, who are already aware that that occurred in the external sector, but Opposition members need to recognise what has occurred overseas. The price the world is prepared to pay Australia for its exports is no longer as high as it once was, and this Budget and legislation are necessary to set that framework of adjustment. This Budget is historic, not only because of that significant fall in export income but because of the discipline that the present Government was able to exhibit in forming its Budget. It is only the third time since the Second World War that we have kept real spending growth to zero. We have brought the deficit level back to 1.4 per cent of gross domestic product-a level previously achieved only in the 1950s and 1960s. It is important to appreciate that by bringing down that Budget deficit we have significantly reduced the calls on the nation's savings that the Government will be making. In other words, we have created the environment for better business investment and lower interest rates. Those are the essentials in this Budget. The tax Bills before the House form part of the Budget, and in another sense also form part of the overall reform of the taxation system in which the Government has been involved in the past year. We have seen one of the most dramatic changes to the tax system since the Second World War; we have certainly seen major reform. This Government is proud of its record of tax reform because it has genuinely changed the basis of the tax system. We have ended most of the rorts and avoidance procedures which so plagued the tax system in the 1960s and 1970s under the Liberal Government. We have ensured that as a result of tax reform there will be significant benefits to ordinary taxpayers. Those benefits will come through in the tax cuts on 1 December this year and 1 July next year. Those cuts will cause the 46c in the dollar rate to come down to 40c, the 60c rate to 49c, and the business sector will benefit from the abolition of the double taxation of dividends-a move which the small business sector has sought since the 1950s. I mention the subject of tax reform because it has become fashionable for Liberal members and the New Right to claim that tax reform is a fraud and that such reform overseas, for example by the Reagan Government, is much more significant and is real tax reform compared with what is happening here. Those same people on the New Right and in the Liberal Party argue that Australia is a high-taxing country. That argument is on the lines that the grass is always greener on the other side, and that it is only conservative governments, such as the Reagan Government, that can make meaningful tax reform. I think that claim by the Liberal Party of Australia and the New Right is worthy of some analysis. Like so many other claims which are made nowadays by the New Right, if it were put under close scrutiny and analysed carefully one would see that it is so much bunkum; it is an illusion, and it simply does not hold up against the facts. Let us look at some of the elements of the Australian tax package and compare them with some of the elements of that much revered and much lauded tax reform which is taking place at the moment in the United States of America. Two very good newspaper articles have been written on this question recently by Ross Gittins of the Sydney Morning Herald. One was published on 24 September and the other was published more recently, on 6 October. Mr Gittins made the point that it is worth looking very closely at our tax reform compared with that of America. He made the point that the United States tax reform package is revenue neutral, the same as in Australia. That is, it will not either raise or lower the total amount of tax in Australia. He said that, like us, the Americans are lowering their rate of personal income tax. He also said that, like us, they are doing it by closing off all the rorts and the loopholes in the system. I want to make some points about how it may be to live in America at the moment if one is a Liberal Party member or supporter of the New Right. I wonder what honourable members think about some of these elements of the American tax package. Americans, under their tax reform package, will lose their deductions for interest paid on credit cards and personal loans; they have always had that. They will lose their deductions for the payment of State and local government sales taxes. They will lose their deductions for contributions to retirement and superannuation funds. They will lose their deductions for donations to churches and charities and for medical and work related expenses. As far as the farmers in America are concerned, income averaging has been abolished. I ask those people who are in the New Right and who are in the Liberal Party what they would have thought if this Government had brought down a tax package as draconian as the one that was recently brought down in America. How would it be if we abolished any tax deductibility for people who contribute to their own retirement through superannuation schemes? How would it be if we in this country abolished income averaging for farmers? How would it be if we in this country abolished deductibility for any donations that people legitimately make to local churches and charities which play such a vital role in our community? A few other things about the American tax package ought to be of interest to the New Right and the Liberal Party. In relation to capital, this essential ingredient of incentive in the free enterprise system, there is news for the New Right and the Liberal Party. In America, tax on capital gains will be much tougher than in Australia. At present in America people pay tax on only 40 per cent of the capital gain, at a maximum rate of 20 per cent. Under the new scheme, they will be paying tax on 100 per cent of the gain, at a maximum rate of 33 per cent. In Australia, we have set up a commonsense capital gains tax policy which taxes people on the real gain after inflation because that is the best and the fairest way to do it. In America the rate of tax is so much higher. What about the business sector which has been holding up the American tax package as the be-all and end-all? How does it come out of it? A host of business tax concessions and shelters have been abolished. Investment allowances have been abolished. The net effect of this tax package on companies in America is that effective company tax rates will rise by about 25 per cent. How does the average Australian compare with the average American in terms of tax payable? A most informative study was done in 1984 by the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development which compared the average wages of manufacturing employees in each of the 23 OECD countries. The study was very well done, and it took into account local taxes, State taxes, medical levies, social security contributions, et cetera. In 1984, the average income of Australian workers was calculated at $19,800. For American production workers, using the current exchange rate, it was $30,800. At that time the OECD calculated that the single Australian worker paid 21.9 per cent of his gross income in tax whilst the single American earner paid 22.9 per cent. So there is a one per cent difference in favour of the Americans. However, for a married worker with a dependent spouse and two children the comparison was 16.7 per cent tax in Australia and 15.2 per cent in America. Again, Australia seems slightly higher. However, the point has to be made that the Americans do not have any family allowances. If we include family allowances in those tax calculations, the Australian worker is paying 14.3 per cent in tax compared with the American worker who is paying 15.2 per cent. In other words, the average Australian employee is paying less income tax than the average American employee. The point is that the Australian tax reform has been financed in two ways-by cutting all the rorts out of the system and by actually cutting government spending. We have had to take the tough decisions to cut government spending. That has not occurred in America and Reagan is still running enormous budget deficits. He has chosen to finance his tax package simply by cutting out some of the rorts in the system. Of course, that country has a lot more rorts to cut out. Let there be no mistake: Tax reform in Australia is genuine. This tax reform, which is the biggest since World War II, will result in significant reductions in personal income tax rates for all Australians. As far as the business sector is concerned, it will ensure that the double taxation of dividends is abolished once and for all. That is something that the small business sector has wanted for many years. This Government is happy to have any international comparison made of its economic or taxation performance, because on all of the criteria this Government stands up exceptionally well. I will go through a few brief points. Under this Government we have had three successive years of strong economic growth. We have averaged growth of 5 per cent per annum for each of the past three years. Compared with the Fraser Government average of 2 per cent and compared with the average of OECD countries, this Government has done exceptionally well. The Government has done exceptionally well in the area of creating jobs. There have been 650,000 new jobs created, 80 per cent of which are in the private sector. We are happy to have any international comparison made about our performance in respect of generating employment, most of which has been in the private sector. Over the past two years, Australia has had the fastest job growth of any country in the Western world. We have seen the level of industrial disputes reduced to less than half of that that applied under the Fraser Government. We have seen a reduction in real wages at a time when we could have expected a massive blow-out in wages. We are happy to have any comparison made with any countries in the OECD in terms of our relative wage and cost performance, because it will show that in difficult times, when our export prices are down, we have made the necessary adjustments which set the pre-conditions for strong investment growth in Australia in the future. Mr Ronald Edwards —We have a wages policy; they do not. Mr BRUMBY —As the honourable member for Stirling says, we have a wages policy; Opposition members do not have a wages policy at all. We have a wages policy which has produced a 7 per cent reduction in real labour unit costs over the past three years; something no other country in the Western world has achieved. As far as the business sector is concerned, we have seen a return to more normal levels of profitability. I conclude by making two points. The shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) raised the question of youth unemployment and Priority One. He suggested that the Hawke Government's Priority One policy has failed. The honourable member for Mackellar made his ignorance of Government policies very plain by his silly comments about Priority One. He said that Priority One was simply about traineeships. Priority One has never been simply about traineeships; it is a policy directed at young people and it has three essential ingredients. The first ingredient is major reform of the education system so that we can give young people in Australia more and better education. We hope that they will stay at school longer so that more of them will participate in further training and higher education. That is the first element of Priority One and in that area we have been exceptionally successful by any standards. The participation rate of young people in Year 12 in schools around Australia now is almost 50 per cent. When we came to government it was a pathetic 36 per cent. We have increased that participation rate from 36 to almost 50 per cent, so more young people are staying at school improving their levels of education and skills. Mr White —Because there are no jobs. Mr BRUMBY —That interjection is absolutely inane. The honourable member knows that when he was in government the unemployment rate amongst young people bordered on 30 per cent. It is now down to 20 per cent. In percentage terms it has been reduced by 50 per cent. Mr White —Rubbish! Mr BRUMBY —Honourable members who say `rubbish' should look at the statistics because they have a few problems between their two ears-there is nothing there. In 1982 the then Government's policies churned young people out into a market in which there were no job opportunities for any of them, whether they had skills or not. I will acknowledge now that young people who leave school without skills have slim prospects. That is why we are revamping the education and training system in order to ensure that young people do not leave school without skills; that they do have skills when they leave school so that they are employable in a changing world. If honourable members opposite cannot get that through their heads, their prospects of ever convincing the Australian public that they know anything about government in this country will rapidly go down to nil. They are nearly there already. The second part of our youth policy is traineeships. We have not succeeded in getting the 10,000 traineeships that we wanted and we readily admit that, but we have made progress. Make no mistake, within a few years traineeships will become as accepted a part of youth training in Australia as apprenticeships have become since their inception 30 years ago. We are still making very valuable progress on traineeships-we have about 4,000 young people in traineeships at present. The last element of our Priority One package is providing additional support for young people. We have done that and we have opened youth access offices through Commonwealth Employment Service centres. We have provided additional support through the community youth support scheme in a broader range of activities and, of course, we have the volunteer youth support program and youth community work program. Those are the three elements of Priority One. On top of that, we have seen a massive reduction in the rate of unemployment amongst young people. We have seen that come down from 29 per cent under the Liberal Government to 21 per cent at the moment and I am quite confident that, as the months progress, that rate of youth unemployment will reduce even further because we are providing traineeships and educational opportunities and because, above all, we want to see young people entering the work force in Australia so that they have a future and have skills to contribute to the economy and society. Thus they can gain self-confidence and have the opportunity to work in a stimulating way all their lives. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(10.28) —I begin by taking up one or two comments made by the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby). It is somewhat ironic that, at the very time the Government has agreed to review the fringe benefits tax, the honourable member for Bendigo should stand up in this House and say how proud he is of the tax reform that the Government has undertaken. At some stage in his speech he also talked about the difficult economic times that we are facing. That is so. However, I do not think it is only because of a fall in commodity prices. Any sensible government, seeing a fall in commodity prices, would immediately try to do something about the cost structure of the procedures. What did this Government do? It dumped a fringe benefits tax on the employers and businessmen of this country-a tax which cannot be understood anywhere in this country. That is obvious as each day passes. At least the Government had the good sense yesterday to make a decision to review the fringe benefits tax and some of its applications to the people of Australia. The sensible course would be to throw out the fringe benefits tax or at least delay its implementation. The first payments are supposed to be due in three weeks time. How in God's name will anyone understand the meaning of the review when that will take all of three weeks, and probably three months. It will then be necessary to convince the Australian people, including employers and businessmen, that a review has taken place and to explain the new rules when they cannot even understand the old ones, having gone at them for six months. That was a stupid comment for the honourable gentleman to make. One of the effects of the Bill will be to put into practice the Budget announcement that there will be reinstatement of full tax exemption of the pay and allowances of the reserve forces and emergency forces. This is not to happen immediately, as one might expect, but from 1 January 1987. The significance of this is that it is being done with the utmost reluctance. It is being done grudgingly. This step is being taken because the defence forces, and especially the reserves, are in such a state that something has to be done, and not because the defence forces are seen to require it or that the Government should be acting in this way in justice to the defence forces. It is worth stating at the outset that our reserve forces are the mainstay of our defence forces. The 70,000 regular service men and women are the nucleus in peacetime of our defence forces and, as has happened twice in recent history, when there is a major conflict in which we are involved it is the reserve forces that provide the bulk of our forces. For three and a half years the present Government has led an assault on our defence forces. The Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) issues statements and says that he is somewhat bemused by the increasing resignation rate in the reserves and the regular forces. Bemused? Anyone can tell him exactly why it is happening. It is taking place because of a lack of Government support for the defence forces. The forces do not feel that the Government needs them or requires them any more. Members of the forces are resigning because there is a lack of modern equipment with which to train. There is a lack of purpose in the defence forces and lack of training opportunities because there is not enough money to provide for decent exercises. The big downturn occurred within the reserves when it was decided not to allow reservists full tax exemption on their reserve force pay. I pay tribute to those who have soldiered on in the reserves over the past three years or so in extremely difficult circumstances and who have maintained the nucleus of the reserve forces. Reservists are asking themselves: `Why am I here? Why am I doing it? Why am I giving up all of my time and forgoing time with my family if at the end of the day it is not worth it?'. Comments have been made by Major-General Cooke, the commander of the Army Reserve, who has said: Reserve rates of pay were always less per day than the regular rates, but the reservists took the broad view that it was equivalent to knocking some tax out of it. They felt an injustice was done when the Labor Government imposed tax and that it was trying to destroy the reserve. That is what it is all about. That is the commander of the Army Reserve. I repeat that, in relation to reservists, he stated: . . . felt an injustice was done when the Labor Government imposed tax and that it was trying to destroy the reserve. He continued: They wondered why they should devote time away from their families when the Government was not serious about the reserve. They started to leave in droves. He continued: The cuts and inability to find a real role for the reserve has since taken its toll of membership. When the Government came to power, the Reserve's strength was 33,000. According to figures available to me, now the number would be about 16,000. However, I doubt that, in effective terms, the figure would be any higher than 10,000 men and women. It is not only the question of money that has caused this rundown in the reserves. The final straw was the Government's removal of the tax exemption. Reservists wondered what the Government was doing, and many felt that membership was no longer worth while. The Government's attitude to the reserves is reflected in its attitude to the regular defence forces of this country. We see it every day. The Royal Australian Air Force does not have enough pilots to man its aircraft. The Royal Australian Navy, in its proud 75th anniversary, according to the Fleet Commander, `simply cannot cope through lack of manpower'. The Army is in a similar position. Its units are at a low strength and it will have to look, in the near future, at reducing the number of its field units. The Chief of the General Staff, the Fleet Commander and senior RAAF officers say the same thing: There is simply not enough manpower to do the job. The Government has decided to reinstate the tax on the reserves, following the tax exemption that it granted in 1983. It is worth repeating that in July 1983 there were 33,000 members of the reserve forces of this country. In June 1986 there were 25,000, some 17,000 of whom were judged to be effective. In my judgment, the figure was considerably lower. The target was some 30,000. So what did the Government do? In 1985 it started a big advertising campaign, on which $2.5m was spent. The Government undertook the campaign because in 1981 or 1982 an advertising campaign for the reserves had been successful and had boosted the number to some 33,000. It had worked before. Why should it not work again? What happened? As the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) said a few moments ago, after $2 1/2m had been spent and 12 months had elapsed, the Reserve Force strength had gone down by over 500 men and women. The previous year, the figure had gone down by some 5,000, and the year before that by some 3,000. The justification was that $2 1/2m and a big campaign had managed to curtail the damage to 577. I do not see much logic in such reasoning. One of the reasons that the strength went down and that the campaign was so unsuccessful was that stupid advertisement showing the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) hopping in and out of a helicopter and urging people to support the reserves. The people of Australia had seen him leading a government that for 3 1/2 years had done nothing but assault the defence forces and the reserve forces of this country. It was a gross act of hypocrisy to depict him hopping out of a helicopter and saying, `Do your bit', especially for the reserves, and particularly because the tax exemption had been taken away. Another problem with the reserves is simply the massive turnover which is occurring. Very few of those who join the reserves last more than a year or two. This is creating enormous problems in training people and trying to keep the units effective. In 1984-85, 9,000, or 36 per cent, of the Reserve forces left. In 1985-86, 7,000, or 31 per cent, left. Every two years there is almost a total turnover of the non-commissioned and junior ranks of the Australian Defence Force Reserve. If this massive turnover is going to continue, how are we going to integrate these units, which are not effective, into the regular forces of this country in line with the recommendations of the Dibb report on the Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities? Dibb quite rightly made this recommendation to give the reserves some sense of purpose. But if units are ineffective, how can we ask them to train with the regular forces of this country? How are we going to give them, as has been suggested, some geographical defence responsibilities if the units are ineffective and this massive turnover of reservists continues year after year? Most importantly, I ask: Under the Dibb report, how are we ever going to allow the reserve forces of this country to take over some of the artillery and armoured units from the regulars who currently man them? It is a sick joke to think that reserve units with this sort of manpower problem and this enormous turnover can, in any way, look after the sophisticated equipment that these days is contained in any artillery or armoured unit. It is ludicrous to think that the Reserve can do that and provide a viable support for the regular forces of this country. Page after page of Press reports in this country tells the same sad story. We see headlines such as `Reserve rundown', `Campaign for army reserves fails', `Recruiting advertising a waste', `Recruiting drive is a mockery', `Hawke's hollow call to arms as reservists vote with feet', `Steep drop in reservists alarms Defence', `A falling-out parade we cannot afford', `Minimal increase makes mockery of Dibb Report recommendations', and `Strength of active Army Reserve at record low'. So the sad story goes on. Is it any wonder that a new defence lobby has emerged which tomorrow in Melbourne will put its case on the depleted state of the defence forces of this country? Is it any wonder that people of some responsibility look at what has happened to our defence forces and our reserves in this country and say: `Where are we going'? They have banded together to try to halt the rot that has been so endemic in the last three years. I ask the Minister for Defence, when we are looking at this problem of reserves, to come down from that high flying academic horse that he likes to ride from time to time and have a real look at what is happening in the defence forces of this country. The grandest plans of any Minister and any government on defence will fail if we do not have the men and women in the defence forces to do the job. It is no use having grand theoretical plans of how to defend this country and provide a real deterrent to people who might want to come and take a piece of it, or all of it. Those plans mean nothing unless we have men and women in the defence forces who are trained, active and able to do the job which their country might require them to do. It is not just a matter of money or tax. It is a matter of purpose, morale and a sense of support from the government of the day that the defence forces are required in this country and that we look to them to provide our first line of protection. The Government does not seem to see that as a problem. Some year or so ago the Minister for Defence initiated the Dibb inquiry. Mr Dibb laboured valiantly and in some cases very well to produce his report. We await the Government's response with interest to see whether it recognises the very real problems of manpower in the defence forces of this country. Mr Dibb was concerned about the reserves and tried to give them a role. But reserve units cannot be given a role if manpower and effectiveness simply does not exist. In conclusion, we welcome the restoration of the tax exemption. In many cases it is too late for disillusioned reservists who have already left. If the Government wants to see some bipartisan approach to defence in this country, I ask it to take some action to restore the purpose and viability of the units that comprise the defence forces and include the reserve forces of this country. I, nor any Australian, would like to think that the Government and the Minister were so neglectful of their responsibilities that they would go down in history as being responsible for destroying the first barrier of protection for Australia by allowing our defence forces and our reserves to become so debilitated that, in world terms, they would be seen to be completely ineffective. Unfortunately that is what is happening at the moment. I urge the Government to have a good look at the state of our reserves and our defence forces and take some positive action, not just in restoring the tax exemption to reservists but, before it really is too late, in putting some guts back into the defence forces of this country. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(10.53) —Today we are debating the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) and the Bank Account Debits Tax Amendment Bill. A wide range of propositions obviously are being put before the House in this debate. At the outset it should be emphasised that the view from this side of the Parliament is that members of the Opposition have one great difficulty-they are seen by the Australian community as being rather irrelevant to the debate. This is because they have not yet got in place any policies that either have any credibility in terms of scrutiny or any viability in terms of their capacity to work in the community. I want to talk about those policies in a moment. In my view the policies that we are putting before the Australian community are quite significant and quite substantial. They are linked together in a way that makes it possible for both the community at large and special sectors of the community to make judgments. It is very clear that at present there is an acceptance by the community that we have policies that link together. There is an acceptance by elements of the financial community that the policies that were announced in the Budget are starting to take shape and are starting to work. I want to deal with a couple of specifics with respect to Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3). One part of the Bill is rather interesting because it provides for a change in the trading stock provisions or trading stock valuation options for horse breeders. The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), who is at the table, will be interested to know that in the past a difficulty arose in respect of the nominal option arrangement under which a valuation was given at $1 a head for sheep, $5 a head for cattle and horses and $4 a head for pigs. This was obviously substantially less than the actual cost in relation to trading stock. The difficulty we had was how to ascribe a stock valuation option in relation to a naturally produced animal such as a horse. If one bought one on the market it is very clear. One could simply nominate the market price. This provision allows for the valuation given to a foal that comes from natural increase to be the valuation of the service fee. That provides quite a substantial change. There has been some controversy in the community about it but, very clearly, this change in the stock valuation option was requested by the breeding industry itself and reflects more realistically the cost of an animal to a breeder. I might add that, if one is looking to pay capital gains tax on the increase in the value of such an animal, this measure means that one has a more realistic benchmark price at its birth which reflects the cost of acquiring that animal and which one then deducts from the ultimate sale price of the animal. So that is one aspect of this law change that is quite significant. It is one, as I said, that was requested by the breeding industry and the Government has acted sensibly, following consultation with the industry, to introduce this change. Another quite significant change in tax provisions is the offering of income tax averaging for sportspersons, artists and authors. It has been a concern of a number of us on this side of the House and, I believe, some opposite as well that those people were often treated very harshly because they may have incurred a short term windfall increase in their income. I know that honourable members in this chamber are interested particularly in football. It has been characteristic in the past that a footballer may in fact make quite a lot of money in one or two years but, due to injury, loss of form or some change in the ownership of the club through which he falls out of favour, he comes back to a much lower level of income. The reality is that the income tax averaging arrangements provide for a much more realistic recognition of the income arrangements as they prevail for sports people, artists and authors. I believe that that is a very sensible reform and the Government is to be commended for that. I know that many people in the community are very pleased with that change. I now turn to talk about tax policy in the broader sense. There has been a lot of discussion in recent days about tax policy. I think two or three points need to be emphasised. One is that the Opposition makes claims about tax policy. We have some difficulty because we are not really sure what the Opposition's tax policy is. We know that it is for reducing the deficit, but we also know that it is for doing away with a substantial number of taxes. I wonder how all those things tie together. I think it is interesting to emphasise that we on this side are in no doubt that the fringe benefits tax is a necessary part of tax reform. It will bring in sufficient revenue to enable us to bring about those major tax cuts. I might emphasise that those tax cuts will be in two phases: From 1 December 1986 the existing 25 per cent rate on income up to $12,500 will be reduced to 24 per cent and the threshold level will be increased to $12,600; and the 30 per cent rate will be reduced to 29 per cent and the next two rates of 46 per cent and 48 per cent will be reduced to 43 per cent and 46 per cent respectively. So there will be a significant drop in marginal tax rates, particularly at the high marginal rate, which will go initially from 60 per cent to 55 per cent. Then from 1 July 1987 the marginal rates applying to income within the ranges of $19,501 to $28,000 and $28,001 to $35,000 will both be reduced to 40 per cent, and the top marginal rate will drop from 55 per cent to 49 per cent. This Government is committed to that tax reduction for the pay as you earn taxpayers. They were the people who bore the burden of tax arrangements under the previous Government and the failure of that Liberal-National Party Government to deal with tax avoidance and evasion. We are committed to that reduction in tax rates; the community recognises that. The fringe benefits tax is the first step in the process. It will enable us to have a substantial increase in revenue, some $700m, which we can inject into the tax cuts for the ordinary people of this country. Let me illustrate the difficulties that the Opposition got into when it was in government. I have here a letter from Senator Messner which was written when he was the Minister Assisting the Treasurer. This is a letter to a constituent of mine concerning a proposal by that constituent to deal with tax avoidance and evasion. Senator Messner said in that letter: Your proposal that legislation should be enacted to ensure that tax schemes should be subject to the approval of the Commissioner of Taxation has been carefully studied. However, the Government feels that the adoption of your proposition and particularly the advocated punitive provisions would not only place an onerous discretionary burden upon the Commissioner of Taxation, it would or could criminalise acts which may merely constitute legal tax avoidance. As you are no doubt aware, under the income tax law tax avoidance and evasion are not criminal offences and the Government would be most reluctant to bring forward legislation, on the basis of your proposal, in order to protect the revenue. Moreover, the Government believes that whilst the activities of participants engaged in tax schemes are to be deplored, the legislative and administrative measures already in force have persuaded all but the fool-hardy to actively or passively forsake this practice. I repeat that this was a letter from Senator Messner when he was Minister Assisting the Treasurer. He was saying, in effect, that the Government was reluctant to act in legislative terms to deal with tax avoidance and evasion. Everyone in the community was aware that there was tax avoidance and evasion right across the community, but the then Government was clearly unwilling to act, as Senator Messner makes very clear in this letter. The Liberal Party of Australia was quite unwilling to act against avoidance and evasion when in government, as this letter demonstrates. Honourable members opposite left a tax system which was not operating effectively. They also left, I might add, a $9.6 billion projected deficit. So the former Government had a $9.6 billion projected deficit and was unwilling to act against tax avoidance and evasion. Yet the Opposition now says: `We will act high and mighty on tax policy. We will dump the fringe benefits tax'-which, incidentally, everyone in the community recognises as a very necessary part of tax reform. It also says that it will toss out a number of other measures of this Government. The Opposition must face the fact that this negative approach both to tax policy and to financial administration did not do it any good when in government and it certainly is not doing it any good in opposition. What are we seeking, on behalf of the Australian community, is a recognition that there are some really important issues that need to be addressed. The fringe benefits tax is one of those. The large cuts in marginal rates from 1 December 1986 and from 1 July 1987 are what the community is calling for. I return to this letter by Senator Messner, written when he was Minister Assisting the Treasurer. I quote again: As you are no doubt aware, under the income tax law tax avoidance and evasion are not criminal offences and the Government would be most reluctant to bring forward legislation, on the basis of your proposal, in order to protect the revenue. I stress those words `in order to protect the revenue'. That is exactly the point. The then Government was not prepared to protect the revenue; it let the revenue get into a shoddy condition. Not only did it do that, but it left us with a projected $9.6 billion deficit. That is the position on tax policy. We have also heard a lot from the Opposition about a wages policy. The Opposition does not have a wages policy and this has been acknowledged. In fact, the general community, what I might call the business-union community in Australia, rejects the ineffective attempts by the Opposition to put forward some kind of wages package. We do have a wages policy and it is one that works. In fact, look at the international comparison of average earnings and see what we had in Australia in 1982 when honourable members opposite were in government. The average figure for the Organisation for Economic Co-operative and Development countries was a 6.5 per cent increase in average weekly earnings. For Australia it was a 16.5 per cent increase-154 per cent above the OECD average when honourable members opposite were in government. That was in 1982. When in government they were incapable of having a wages policy that worked; it did not work. Honourable members opposite tried to put together a wages policy and it fell apart. The Australian community understands that the Opposition is incapable of putting together a wages policy. In 1985 our major OECD trading partners had an increase in average earnings of 4.6 per cent compared with 6.2 per cent for Australia. In other words, we reduced the gap substantially because we have a wages policy, in both the prices and incomes accord marks 1 and 2, which delivers results in terms not only of sensible wage adjustments but also of reflecting wages in terms of the capacity of the economy to pay and in terms of need and community demand. I make the point that no wages policy has been put forward by honourable members opposite. We have a wages policy. The figures that I have just cited from the Budget Papers make it very clear that the Opposition's wages policy, when it was in government, resulted in a 16.5 per cent increase in average weekly earnings in Australia when the average for OECD countries was 6.5 per cent. That was in 1982 when the Opposition had the ship of state and was seeking to sink it. It was seeking to sink the Australian economy, along with mass unemployment and everything else. It nearly succeeded but the Australian community woke up and tossed those opposite out of government. They will be kept on that side of the House while they continue with their feeble efforts towards a wages policy. I now turn to trade policy. Again, the Opposition when in government was incapable of developing a trade policy. We inherited that absence of a trade policy. Let us look at the decline in commodity prices that has occurred and the impact of those commodity price reductions on the Australian community. I could cite many figures but I will choose one or two. Between 1981-82 and 1985-86 we have seen a 28 per cent decline in the price for coal. In the same period we have seen a decline in the price of wheat of 27 per cent. For wool there has been a 22 per cent decline. Between 1983-84 and 1985-86 there has been a decline in the price of aluminium of 28 per cent. I could continue because the price has declined for many other commodities. For example, between February 1983 and August 1986 the London Metal Exchange price for silver fell from $US13.97 to $US5.31 per ounce, a reduction of 62 per cent. In the face of that sort of decline in commodity prices we have heard nothing from the Opposition about its trade policy. We can point to internal adjustments in terms of the Australian economy both with the accord being able to reflect the needed discount of wages and also an exchange rate policy that reflects that change in our commodity prices and in our trade patterns. We floated the Australian dollar. When the Opposition was in government it was unwilling to do that. But we have done that and it has produced a substantial realignment of the Australian economy-so much so that yesterday the United States of America announced that it wants to buy $100m worth of engines from General Motors-Holden's Ltd to be used in the United States. When I was speaking the other day to people in the paper industry they said that there is now an enormous demand for Australian paper products. There is no longer a buying in from overseas; they are being bought within Australia. Why is that? It is because we allowed the Australian dollar to float and the more realistic exchange rate has meant that Australian industry is now more competitive. Australia is on the move. My home State of Western Australia reflects that substantially. Australia is on the move again despite the commodity price collapse. We have an economy that is now starting to move again. The Australian community recognises this. What honourable members opposite have to come to terms with is that that is the consequence of putting together good policies and getting acceptance for them from the community. I also note, and I believe it deserves recognition in this debate, that the Minister for Trade, Mr Dawkins, achieved great success in Uruguay in getting the countries of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to look at the impact of subsidies on agricultural export products. I know that that is of concern to members on both sides of the House. The concern is being felt very much in our rural communities. It is a concern that we as a country must address urgently. On a bipartisan note, I am very pleased to say, that members of the Opposition were able to assist us in our approaches to the United States on a number of issues relating to export subsidies. That is a very urgent problem. I believe that as a Parliament and as a country we are addressing that effectively. It is an important issue. The Australian community has now come to recognise that it is somewhat out of our control but that we as a country are taking the best possible options in doing something about it. I wish to deal with a couple of other items before I close. I have talked about our strategy, our taxation policy, wages policy and trade policy. The previous speaker from this side of the House, the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby), spoke about youth policy and youth traineeships. It has been very important for us to come to terms with the difficulties faced by young people in this country. The level of youth unemployment was close to 30 per cent when we came into office. We have done something substantial about getting young people back into jobs. Youth traineeships are one instance of that. But the general improvement in the level of job creation has been significant, with the creation of 670,000 jobs in three years. That sort of level of job creation is very important in getting young people back into the work force. We can see that the impact of industrial policy since we have been in government has resulted in some revitalised industries, particularly the steel and motor vehicle industries. Monetary policy has been one of our major focuses. One of the difficulties in the past was that excessive reliance was placed on monetary policy. There was an obsession with simply trying to use the tools of monetary policy to bring about the necessary adjustments in the economy. What we have been trying to do is to fit monetary policy in with the taxation, wages, trade, youth and industry policies to which I have referred. Fiscal policy is also very important. The important thing about fiscal policy in this Budget is a zero growth in outlays. That zero growth in outlays is beginning to reflect itself in terms of the financial markets, with some easing of interest rates and also a significant reduction in the deficit. The deficit reduction was greater than that called for or sought by the financial community. We achieved that. We have put in place a substantially reduced deficit and a zero growth in outlays. This is a very good performance in terms of fiscal policy. I will close by talking about finance policy. One of the significant things that set this Government aside from the previous Liberal and National Party governments is that we were able to deregulate the Australian financial industry and allow foreign banks into Australia. We now have a much more effective finance industry in Australia and one that reflects the fact that Australia is part of the international community. If one looks at the overall strategy reflected in our policies to which I have referred of taxation, wages, trade, youth, industry, monetary, fiscal and finance, one sees that this Government has a comprehensive approach to economic management. What the Australian community is saying is that it recognises that. It also recognises that the Opposition does not have that comprehensive approach. I am pleased to commend these Bills to the House. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Page)(11.12) —This debate is about important matters and issues relating to taxation and the economy. It highlights the debacle that has occurred under the Hawke Government. It spells out the failure of the Government to control spending to the point where the Government has broken the trilogy commitment to hold taxation at no more than 25 per cent of gross domestic product and it has proceeded to tax Australians to the highest point in history. Of course, the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) failed to acknowledge that aspect as well as many others. The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1986 and the Bank Account Debits Tax Amendment Bill 1986 reveal the Government's contempt for ordinary taxpayers. This is well illustrated by the decision to charge a fee of $200 for appeals against rulings by the Commissioner of Taxation regardless of the size or the complexity of a claim. It underlines the Government's incompetent handling of the withholding tax issue. The Government changed the tax rules, caused a run on the dollar and then retreated 27 days later. There was a disgraceful treatment of the defence forces' reserves by the withdrawing of the tax free status of reservists' pay. That caused a grave rundown of the reserve forces and damage to the morale and effectiveness of the forces. We now have a belated U-turn from the Government to restore that concession. Again, this has brought out into the open the very poor attempts by the Government over the past two years to cover up its mistakes. There has been mistake after mistake. The debate going on at present is nothing more nor less than a sham on the part of Government speakers. I take, for example, the increase in the general rate of the bank account debits tax imposed by this legislation. It is an increase from $1.50 to $2. What does that mean? It means that an extra $90m will be taken straight out of the bank accounts of the people of Australia. From the last Budget, it heaps on to the total tax take a figure of no less than $1,500m. We are also told about tax reform and that this Government has introduced all sorts of goodies. We are told that the Budget cut expenditure, but let us take the facts. In four years the tax take has virtually doubled as a result of the tragic economic management of this Government. Yet the Government, both within and outside this House, is attempting to mislead the public into believing that the Government has introduced tax reforms, has provided the groundwork for tax rate reductions, and that all is rosy. Let us look to see just what that means. The promise of personal tax cuts is the greatest sell out ever. The promises have been made three times, broken three times, and now have been reinstituted on a `maybe later' basis-on 1 November, I think, or on 1 February next year. This was spelt out in the Minister's second reading speech, but what the Government and its supporters do not say is that if that stage is reached, taxpayers will be no better off because of the increases that will occur in the total tax take in the form of indirect taxes, sales taxes and in many other directions. The rates paid by some two million taxpayers will have increased from about the 29 per cent level to about the 40 per cent level in that time scale. Therefore, the tax cuts are meaningless and will not afford relief of the sort promised. Certainly there will be a tax cut at the moment it is provided, but there will be no recognition of the increases that have occurred or the effect on most people who move from one tax rate to another. It is total deception, which is unfair to the average Australian. Let us look at what has been planted on small business. I refer to capital gains tax, and to the negative gearing tax, which has had such an adverse effect on the housing industry, on housing accommodation, rental charges and all that goes with them. The honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) said that the Opposition had no tax policy. I wonder what made him scream last weekend about the fringe benefits tax. He sought national media coverage to appeal to his own Government to review that tax. Obviously he found in his electorate, as did many other Labor members in theirs, that things were getting a little hot. They went into the Labor Caucus and the corridors of power and sought changes. Therefore, last night there was a belated promise of some changes to the fringe benefits tax. But what changes will be made? No doubt they will be announced two days before the Queensland election, which will be significant for my Queensland colleagues. There will be a last-minute rescue attempt by the Hawke Government for the Queensland Labor Party. But there is no doubt that it will not work, because the fringe benefits tax has been taken so far down the road by this inept Government that no matter what kind of U-turn or J-curve is imposed in detailed implementation, the Government will not get away with it and it knows it. The Government now pretends that it has some compassion in the areas where the drastic effect is being felt. What is significant about the fringe benefits tax is the total failure in clarity of information to the taxpayer. There has been a great outlay on printed material, booklets, leaflets and so on, the content of which is so confusing that the average taxpayer still does not know what the tax means. We know that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Acting Treasurer (Mr Hurford) do not understand the tax. They have admitted it in this House when they have not been able to answer direct questions. I ask one simple question: If the Government is honest and is not engaging in deception, why is no hotline operating on the fringe benefits tax? Why cannot the ordinary taxpayer make a call, seek information and obtain a clear answer? The reason is that there is no recourse. The Government and the Australian Taxation Office have no clear answers and there is total confusion. It is incredible that the Taxation Office in recent weeks has been making phone calls to taxpayers asking them where their returns stand in respect of fringe benefits. Those names have been taken from lists of pay as you earn taxpayers, and that process is beyond comprehension. There is no doubt where the directions have come from. They have come from Ministers. They have been told to make it hot for taxpayers because the Government has not liked the response from the business world, which has faced up to the reality of the FBT. This is an appalling state of affairs which must be related to self-assessment and to the changed processes in taxation administration. The load placed on taxation offices in each State will be very great indeed. The Government's recourse will be to get tough with people and to frighten the hell out of them. Is that a fair go? Mr Peter Fisher —Gaol them, the Minister says. Mr IAN ROBINSON —As my colleague interjects, this morning the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) said that if farmers do not send in their returns, a gaol sentence will be imposed-those were his words. First, it is beyond that Minister's jurisdiction to make such a pronouncement; but secondly, he knows very well that there is still total confusion about the content of this tax measure. This comes down to the results of the Government's ineptitude in tax matters over the last two years. Much of this legislation involves a revision, a process of change in just about every direction. I refer to the introduction of changes in livestock values for taxation purposes. Let us remember that the first announcement of this change was made over a year ago. The Minister for Primary Industry, the Treasurer and nobody else could answer questions about the implementation of these proposals. They kept on saying that the matter was being worked out by the Taxation Office and that those concerned would be told how to handle the returns when the matter had been worked out. After a year in which the matter was left in the air there was an announcement of change to the effect that a return would be necessary only in respect of stud horse breeders. It was amazing to hear the honourable member for Stirling extolling these changes as though they were aimed at helping the primary producer or stock owner. He does not know what he is talking about. He should stick to his metropolitan area of Perth where he might understand a little of what his constituents are saying. Perhaps he is so worried and frantic because after the next election he will not be the member for Stirling. Mr McVeigh —The National Party will win that seat. Mr IAN ROBINSON —I do not know that the National Party will win it, but somebody will, and it will not be the honourable member for Stirling. The fact is that at no stage has the Government had a firm policy on many of these considerations, yet Labor members have the temerity to state in this House that the Opposition has no policy. It is obvious that for months the Government has been staggering from pillar to post. In an attempt to hold things together, the Prime Minister has rushed from one side of the political spectrum to the other. In the last three weeks he has totally changed from Australian Labor Party philosophy to try to embrace those things that may rescue him from total disaster; that is, to look down the gun barrel and see that something must be done to arrest the drift of capital off-shore, to encourage again some investment in industry inside this country and to recognise the enormous problem that was revealed by what occurred at Robe River. Despite his protestations in that respect, he has turned around and said that we must do something about work practices and that we will have a summit to solve that problem. It is apparent that we face the dilemma that we have a government with no firm policy on the economy and taxation; it is like shifting sands the whole way along the line. It has no firm policy on encouragement of growth and enterprise in this country and arresting the drift that has set in. We listened to the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) making comparisons. He went on for an enormous span of time in this debate making comparisons with the United States of America, but he failed to acknowledge three important things: Firstly, he failed to compare the interest rates in the United States and those in Australia. Our interest rates are about three times those of the United States. Secondly, he went on to talk about growth, but his comparisons there were dead wrong again. Thirdly, he compared taxation. Really, what a lamentable attempt to make a comparison based on fact. It was total deception, as so much of the whole spectrum of what is said about these issues turns out to be, from the Government front bench to the far back bench. All honourable members opposite are directed as to what to say when they come in here. In the process they leave wide open the whole question of where this country will go in the short run if we see a continuation of measures of the kind that we are debating today. Mr Nehl —The country goes broke if they continue. Mr IAN ROBINSON —As the honourable member for Cowper says, the country will go broke. The fact is that the country has gone broke, with the increase in the total deficit, the increase in taxation and the failure to grapple with the real problems which are so totally apparent, yet the Government is floundering still in all these matters. I refer in particular to the imposition of a $200 fee whenever anyone henceforth finds it appropriate to put a case to the Commissioner of Taxation for a ruling on a taxation assessment. This surely spells out again the intention of this Government to use fear, threats and the big stick all the way along the line in taxation matters. A $200 fee is totally unfair to the average individual taxpayer. Certainly if it is an assessment involving a big issue, millions of dollars or a large corporation one could accept such a proposition. This fee is to apply across the board. Three or four weeks ago during Question Time in this House the Treasurer was asked whether the fee would be refunded if the finding was in favour of the taxpayer. The Treasurer said that he did not know and that he would have to find out. He has not come back into this House to tell us his decision on that matter. It certainly was not mentioned in the second reading speech on this legislation. It is time the Government had the decency to tell the small taxpayers of this country what their fate will be in respect of the $200 charge if a review is required in relation to the amount of tax involved. An amount of $175 could well be regarded by an ordinary small taxpayer as a substantial figure that one would need to question. It will cost $200 to find out whether it can be reviewed. There is no assurance that the taxpayer will get his $200 back. Where are we in this country going? We are being taken way down the track, as I said earlier. The Government is using standover tactics and the creation of fear as far as taxation is concerned. It is not good enough for Australians; it is not good enough for the encouragement of the Australian way of life as we used to know it. This all means that more and more people will fall out of small business and out of the employment producing areas, taking risks, having a go, doing the kind of job that has been done in this country now for a very long time-I suppose 150-odd years-when people would take risks, put money into an enterprise, have a go at doing something that would be constructive and productive, provide employment, encourage incentives and have this country progressing little by little, building up a great nation. Every one of these measures will tear that down, put it into the hands of the bureaucrat and place us all in bondage to a government or a government department. It is just not good enough. Most of the legislation embodied in the two Bills before us imposes nothing less than draconian measures. Mr O'KEEFE(Burke)(11.31) —Following the honourable member for Page (Mr Ian Robinson) this morning, I find myself amazed. These people who have the capacity to talk about doom and gloom in our economy reach an all-time low when they start talking about gaoling the very people whom they purport to represent. The honourable member for Page today started talking about gaoling farmers. Apparently this is a prediction that was made by the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher)-we will see what the farmers in the Mallee think about that-that we ought to start gaoling farmers who do not pay the fringe benefits tax. Mr O'Neil —Outrageous cronies, they are. Mr O'KEEFE —As my colleague the honourable member for Grey says, they are just out- rageous cronies. It is just one of those things that seems to stem from this capacity and this need to preach doom and gloom continually in the absence of talking about policies and in the absence of any constructive suggestions about the future. Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome you to the chair. I thought I would do something that the honourable member for Page and most of his predecessors have failed to do this morning; that is, talk about the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) and the cognate Bill that we are debating. Mr Ian Robinson —I rise on a point of order. The honourable member for Burke asserted that I have alleged that gaol sentences would be imposed on farmers who do not pay the fringe benefits tax. I quoted the Minister for Primary Industry when he made a public statement outside this House, in which he said precisely that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr Ian Robinson —There is a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr O'KEEFE —The honourable member for Page made a brief reference to some sort of opposition to the measure contained in this legislation, but it was pretty lukewarm because the bank account debits tax was an initiative of the Government of which he was a member and no doubt he supported its introduction. It is a fair measure which assists in revenue raising and which also applies in a reasonable and fair way what amounts to a turnover or transaction tax within the banking system. It is of interest to note that the majority of revenue raised from this measure comes from those who make larger transactions and from larger corporations making bigger transactions in the financial sector. It is also of interest to note that in one day when the Holmes a Court and Elliott stock-market raiding was going on the Victorian Government made $5m by way of the financial institutions duty which is another form of turnover tax within the banking sector. I do not feel too uncomfortable about that. I am not surprised that the Opposition chooses not to talk about it because it is a measure which it introduced when it was in government. The debate has tended to focus more upon the overall tax strategy and the overall measures that the Government is taking to resurrect the economy it inherited and to place Australia in a better position for the late 1980s and 1990s. Probably the most prominent feature of this Budget strategy, the one which will be talked about most in the next few weeks, is the tax cuts that will be delivered on 1 December and which arise from the tax reform that this Government has been prepared to take on; the tax reform that has addressed the inequities, the avoidance and the disgraceful shambles that the Opposition left behind through its failure to oversee and implement a fair and equitable tax system. We have had so much discussion about the fringe benefits tax in the past three or four months that I cannot resist the opportunity to talk a little about it this morning. Certainly there will be some administrative fine tuning. In my view, there has never been any question that this would occur. Of course it was going to occur. I want to talk about the basic principle and the basic need for such a tax. I have chosen to go to the editorial of the Australian Financial Review of 12 August this year. We should remember that this is not some Australian Labor Party propaganda publication or some piece of writing that has been constructed by those who support the tax; the Australian Financial Review is the business sector's own paper, the one that all the business leaders grab at 9 o'clock every morning to see what is going on in the economy. The headline of the editorial that day is `Hypocrisy and whingeing about the FBT'. The editorial goes on to say, in effect, that this is a minor Budget revenue measure and that while the people in the business sector who have been enjoying these rorts have been carrying on about it, the rest of the world has got on with business and trade and is pinching the business out from under their noses. The editorial refers to the fact that a fringe benefits tax introduced by the New Zealand Government over 18 months ago is now part of the New Zealand economy and nothing more has been heard about it. The editorial finishes by saying: Fringe benefits taxes are now well established in New Zealand. While Australian business people whinge, New Zealanders are getting on with business and taking their markets. I think that that is a pretty fair assessment of the situation. We recognise the point that has been made by the editor of the Australian Financial Review in this editorial, when he said: . . . surely we do not need a system of incentive that relies on evading tax through non-cash income that is undeclared. What is required is that the marginal rate of tax on income be reduced from its present 61 per cent, and that ALL income be properly taxed. That is exactly what this Government is doing. The tax cuts are the first move to reduce the high marginal rates that were introduced over successive years by a former Government, which was incapable of taking the sorts of measures to produce the equity that we need in this economy. We have heard a lot of discussion about the small business sector. I welcome the opportunity to look at some of the measures that this Government has taken to assist this group. It ought to be remembered that during the past 18 months this Government has been faced with major and necessary reforms of our whole economy. The rate of change forced upon us has been rapid. During that process we have taken a number of measures that are of direct assistance to the small business sector. The floating of the Australian dollar, as the first measure, has permitted the world to make its judgment. The effects are now flowing through. Imports are now significantly more expensive and, because Australian products are cheaper on the world market, we are now getting export orders that we were not getting before. In Kyneton, the town where my office is located, just a couple of weeks ago an Australian sock manufacturer received an order from New York for 1,000 dozen pairs of socks. This is a sale that would not have been made 18 months ago. High quality Australian made pure wool socks are being air freighted to New York at a full retail profit margin because the devaluation of the dollar has put our manufacturers back into the market-place. That is the message that is slowly starting to filter through our economy. It is the reason that the doom and gloom that the Opposition has peddled is now being seen for what it is and is now being ignored. The move to allow small business to retain profits within the business, to build up the capital and equity base of the business, is a positive adjustment and is welcomed by the small business proprietors whom I know. No longer do builders, hardware shop proprietors and others who have had a good year suddenly take off on an overseas trip in order to spend the dough so they do not get taxed on it. Now they are able to retain the profits in the business. This helps to reduce their debt levels and improve their assets base. The imputation of new dividends-this is a new treatment of dividends-provides a very major incentive for investment in Australian companies. Many small businesses are thriving on the developments that are taking place in that area. The cuts in income tax not only will reduce the payroll debt of business but also will provide incentive for high income earners and will remove this apparent disincentive that is created by tax rates in excess of 50c in the dollar. The honourable member for Page (Mr Ian Robinson) mentioned the capital gains tax. I must admit that I am surprised that anyone on the other side of the chamber is still even talking about the capital gains tax in this House. It is as dead an issue as one could find in the economy. Business people now understand its key features, which are that all assets owned before 19 September 1985 are exempt, future capital gains are discounted by inflation and the capital gains tax is charged at the marginal rate. Most small business proprietors know that they pay very little tax and the rollover provisions allow a business to continue in the family without capital gains tax. Taking all those measures into account, it is just not an issue among genuine small business operators. The only place it is an issue is among the high fliers who have been after quick turnover and high profit capital gains. They are the ones who have been caught by this legislation. So, when we hear them bleating about it, we know whose interests they are really purporting to represent. I cannot miss the opportunity to reflect upon the Australian Made campaign. Who are the direct beneficiaries of the move by this Government to encourage people to buy Australian products? The answer is the Australian workers, Australian businesses and Australian consumers, who will now see on the super market shelves, in motor vehicle yards and all around the place high quality Australian made products coming through from the initiative of this Government. Every order that turns away from an imported product to an Australian made product directly benefits the small business proprietors who either sell it, make it or are involved as suppliers to major industries. I will quote just one example. The Ford Motor Co. of Australia Ltd plant is in Broadmeadows in my electorate. A number of small businesses in my electorate which are suppliers to the Ford operation are receiving key benefits because we are experiencing a preference for a high quality Australian made product. The businesses which supply that company are receiving the benefits from that. We must refer to the major gain for small business in reduced wage and on-costs that have come about and are coming about through our measures and the efforts of the Victorian Government, with its reductions in payroll tax and its changes to work care premiums. Opposition members continually preach doom and gloom and talk in these terms. They have been left behind. I could not help noticing an article in the Australian on Monday, 18 August, in which there were some comments by the National Director of the business consultant firm, Arthur Young. Let us remember that these comments were not made by some Australian Labor Party crony, but by the head of one of the biggest firms of international auditors. He is one of the people who give the Liberal Party of Australia its policy advice, no doubt. He said: Management needs to get off its behind and take advantage of the lower dollar to improve its international competitiveness. Australian business is too bureaucratic, too political and is not orientated towards productivity. I think that Opposition members should take a bit of notice of that, coming as it does from one of their own people. Mr Hand —Who said that? Mr O'KEEFE —It was said by the National Director of the management firm, Arthur Young. I am sure that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), who is at the table, and who is chairing the review of a number of productivity moves and work practices, will be interested to see that Opposition members are totally out of touch, not only with their own people and country, but also with those who are key advisers to businesses. I finish by looking with a little humour at just one other issue that has developed over the last few months-the assessment and perception of the value of the Australian dollar and its position within the economy. We appreciate that it has taken time for people to start to understand that our dollar had to be floated and allowed to find its value and that our economy had to adjust to the new message. I have noticed a change in the assessment of this, even by the media, which are beginning to understand it better. In June this year when the dollar had reached a level of US66c, the Melbourne Sun had an enormous front page headline which read `Dollar Doom'. This week the Melbourne Herald, a paper from the same stable, the Herald and Weekly Times, has come to a more realistic assessment. It has the headline `Australian dollar at healthy level'-and that was when the dollar was valued at US63.8c! `Dollar Doom' was wrong and `Australian dollar at healthy level' was right. Gradually the community at large is getting a perception of the economy and realising that the economic policies of this Government are designed to face the challenge of bringing Australia back from its knees in the world economy. Our policies are working and the turnaround in our trade is coming through. Our addressing of wages policy has worked, our addressing of trade policy has worked and now a general perception that an improvement is under way is starting to filter through. That is to be commended. Finally, I return to the question of the fringe benefits tax. When people hear this continual pressing and the continual claim that the FBT will be abolished by a Liberal government, they should remember that the whole matter should be seen in perspective. In this year's Budget the Government will raise revenue in excess of $71 billion. That is the Budget revenue that must be accounted for. Of that, less than half of one per cent will be raised by fringe benefits tax. One sees Opposition members continually pressing for the fringe benefits tax to be dropped-not changed and fine tuned as the Government intends, but abolished. Opposition members are engaged in exactly what the Editor of the Australian Financial Review described in the editorial I quoted earlier as `hypocrisy and whingeing about the fringe benefits tax'. I support this legislation, I support the economic direction in which the Government is moving and I have no hesitation in recommending the legislation to the House. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(11.51) —The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) and the Bank Account Debits Tax Amendment Bill which are being discussed in this cognate debate deal with various matters, including cash bids, which will actually cost the Government $1m to $1.5m; stock valuations for horses, which will have a net revenue gain to the Government of $7m; reductions and tightening of exemptions for interest withholding tax, which will have a net revenue gain of $10m; the reinstatement of full exemptions for the members of the Defence Force Reserve, with a cost to revenue of $12m; and some other matters where the costs appear to be fairly negligible. This is all part of the Government's proposal to continue to increase taxation. As for the disaster of the Defence Force Reserve, the Opposition warned the Government that the effect of taxing the remuneration of reservists, especially when the very people we wanted in the Reserve were those who were already earning good incomes, would be that they would obviously pay a high percentage of that income in tax. For that reason people moved out of the Reserve in droves. With that one exception, most of the measures in these Bills will increase taxation. The Bank Account Debits Tax Amendment Bill will bring in some $90m in additional revenue in a full year, so we can see that this particular debate today is all about more money for the Government. I informed the House yesterday how significant that has been under this Government. The inherited Budget of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) taxed Australians $44,000m. The Budget of which these debates are part taxes Australians $71,000m-an increase of $27,000m or 61 per cent in four years. There is no evidence in the community that our population or our earning capacity has risen by that amount. It is just a case of more taxation. I am interested in two areas. I respond first to the honourable member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe), who said that the capital gains tax was a non-event and that it would never hurt anybody anyway. I hope that he is listening on the radio, because he is not in the chamber, because I wish to advise him of the effect that the capital gains tax will have on small business, for which I have an unashamed responsibility. I draw his attention to the circumstances of someone starting a new shop, say a delicatessen, in which the investment in plant and equipment is $20,000. After a couple of years of hard work-and I mean hard work, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. seven days a week probably-the potential sale price of that business, including goodwill, could be of the order of $50,000. There is $30,000 of capital gain in that transaction and with 25 per cent tax suddenly the sale price of that business is reduced substantially-possibly to $35,000 or $40,000. If that 25 per cent taxation is not a major amount, I will go he. Of course it is. It is 25 per cent of the sale price that will go in tax. It is different when one talks in millions of dollars. That is how this Government tends to talk with the big business sector when it sits down to discuss industrial relations. It does not invite the Australian Small Business Association along because it only wants to talk to big business. This is a Government of big business, big government and big unions. In fact, the capital gains tax can affect people very harshly. That tax is around now but its effects are only starting to materialise. Owner-driver truckies, for example, were told that they would be safe provided that they owned the property prior to 19 September 1985. That, too, is incorrect. Ownership comes in many ways in this modern world and it can take the form of a lease finance arrangement on, for example, a truck, or on earthmoving or agricultural machinery. If there was a lease on 19 September, the owner was the finance company. If a sale of the equipment has been transacted since then and if the price received was substantially above the residual value in the lease-that is common in these days of inflation-the reality is that there is capital gains tax liability on the difference. Four years ago, for example, the residual value of a piece of equipment worth $100,000 would probably be $30,000. The trade-in value on something costing the owner about $200,000 would probably be about $80,000, and the capital gain would be of the order of $50,000. That means that $25,000-worth of tax has to be found. It will be understood quickly that it is not reasonable to argue that capital gains tax has gone. It continues to exist and it will hurt. An interjection has been made about my interest in the breeding of race horses. I want to make it very clear: I have a financial interest in that activity and, therefore, I am subject to the increase in taxation that will stem from the means by which the trading stock of a thoroughbred race horse will be changed. I have talked to representatives of the industry and their view is that there was a worthwhile trade-off with the Government in return for the ability to be able to depreciate the value of blood stock, the provision which the Government introduced. I shall quote the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), who answered a question on the racing industry on 22 August 1985. He said: Let me point out to honourable members opposite in quite stark terms the size of the racing industry. The industry employs upwards of 250,000 people full time and part time. It has a turnover of $15,000m, five times the turnover of Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. That is all true. The Minister might have included the betting turnover, which turns over very quickly if one is backing winners. One gets it back. The racing industry is large and it is labour intensive. The stud business is one that will always employ many people, and no one knows that better than I. I have a small 200- acre property which could support other forms of livestock with probably no permanent supervision, yet it employs up to three or four people at certain times of the year, and a number of persons at all times. The racing industry is important and I accept that it is satisfied with the deal that it has done with the Government. It is a great pity, however, that the Government has seen fit to introduce a trade-off into the arrangement and to impose an additional $7m worth of taxation on the industry. Previously, the industry was able to value foals, when they were born, at $5 when they were on the ground. It was able, therefore, to claim a tax deduction for the service fee paid to the owner of a stallion, which might be anything from $500 to $50,000-plus. A tax deduction could be claimed at the time of paying that fee. That deduction will remain, but previously when the foal was born it could be brought on the books at a value of $5 irrespective of the size of the service fee. It is my belief that $5 is about the value of a foal at that time. It is only later when the foal develops and there is confirmation of that, and when it survives the rigours of being a foal-for example, running into fences and catching colds and other diseases-that it will start to increase in value. There are some who might have preferred the option of bringing foals on the books at a reasonable price and paying some tax at that time. There was that option because a foal could be brought on the books at $5 or, if the owner chose, at a higher amount. My recollection is that I chose to bring in foals at a higher amount than $5, but I cannot be sure of that. I remember discussing the issue with my accountants. Owners will now be obliged to bring young horses on to the books at the cost of the service fee, and tax will be paid on that sum in that year. That is what it is all about. It is another move by the Government to bring forward tax collections so that the Government can achieve artificially a much lower deficit and demonstrate a much greater commitment to reducing its deficit than in fact it has. It has achieved that result by short term fiddles of this nature. Previously the $7m of taxation would have been paid in one way or the other when the youngsters were sold. That procedure is being changed and the foals will be brought on the books at the value of the service fee, and tax will be paid in the year that they are born. When the youngsters are sold, that amount will be deducted. The Government's increased tax take in future years will be affected by the tax that they collect this year. The breeder will pay his tax earlier and that will cost him bank interest, and we know what interest is like under the present Government. That is what the Budget is all about. In the West Australian of Tuesday, 26 August Mr Les McCarrey, who was the Under-Treasurer in Western Australia for many years and someone who is highly regarded around Australia-he is now retired-wrote an article about the Budget. I shall quote a few of his comments, which highlight the Government's move to try to fiddle the deficit so that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) can go overseas and boast to the Americans, again using figures that are not exactly correct, as is his wont, that he is a better financial manager than possibly those in the American administration, or possibly those who are engaged by foreign companies. Mr McCarrey wrote: Somewhere in Canberra-and not for public eyes-will be a piece of paper showing the real or underlying deficit that will confront the Treasurer going into 1987-88. That is because Treasuries are usually at pains to inform ministers of the longer-term effect of their decisions shorn of the cash-flow fiddles that can tart up the Budget result in any given year but leave next year exposed to cold reality. That piece of paper would show that the basic structural deficit built into this Budget and the starting point for next year is at least $8 billion. This real or underlying deficit, call it what you will, is easily derived. We start with the announced deficit of $3.5 billion. That was arrived at from Mr Keating's stated starting point of $7.5 billion, through expenditure cuts of about $2 billion and revenue-raising measures to boost receipts by $2 billion. But the expenditure cuts were not all real in a continuing sense. About $390m was saved by deferring pension indexation increases, income test adjustments and medical and hospital benefit rises. In fact, the Budget tables show that, of the $2 billion expenditure `cuts' this year, only $1.5 billion will carry over into 1986-87 . . . Of the expected tax gain of $2 billion, about $600m was obtained by deferring the proposed personal income-tax cuts by three months. We have heard boasts about the great effect of that reduction in taxation, but we know that when it is all over taxation for the average weekly earner with a family will increase by 3 per cent. The article states: Thus more than $1 billion of the measures implemented by the Treasurer this year, ostensibly to reverse the deterioration of the nation's finances, has no lasting effect. It is simply a one-off cash flow adjustment. In another part of his article Mr McCarrey draws our attention to other considerations. He writes: The largest of these has been widely identified- he is now referring to income- the $2.6 billion profit transfer from the Reserve Bank, largely by way of windfall from the bank's sales of foreign exchange. What a disaster that has been. We have been selling our foreign reserves to prop up the dollar. The honourable member for Burke was at pains to tell us that the dollar has now reached a healthy level. It is now worth 63 per cent of its former value, and if that is a healthy level, I will go he. I do not subscribe to all the claims that there are advantages in the reduced value of the dollar. There are advantages and disadvantages to industry in having a reduced dollar, and most of the disadvantages are obvious. The cost of fuel and the cost of imports have increased. I spoke to a businessman the other day and he talked about buying a piece of machinery that would have cost $300,000 and which now costs more than $500,000. In those circumstances one is not impressed with the devaluation of the dollar. Mr McCarrey continues to note all the other various windfalls and concludes: When we add this commitment to the minimum $6 billion gap emerging from this year, it is clear that Mr Keating has an $8 billion to $9 billion headache up front in 1987-88. This is the last fiddle that the Treasurer will ever try because the Australian people will never believe him again. The other point I raise concerns the increase in the bank account debits tax. Again, the measure represents an outright attack on the small business community. It will increase government revenues by $90m per annum, and that will be paid primarily by small business. There will be a tax increase of 5c on cheques written under $100-that is, an increase from 10c to 15c. On cheques between $100 and $499, the increase will be from 25c per transaction to 35c per transaction. For cheques between $500 and $4,999-probably the most frequent bracket for cheques written by a small businessman-the charge will go from 50c to 75c. For larger transactions up to $9,999, the charge will go from $1 to $1.50. For cheques over $10,000, the charge will go from $1.50 to $2. There is only a 50c increase on cheques for substantial amounts such as those which Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd, Elders IXL Ltd and other large companies might write. The real increase is that 50 per cent increase on cheques between $500 and $4,999. The tax burden on the typical small businessman has gone up 50 per cent. The tax burden on the large businessman has gone up 30 per cent. It does not even count when cheques are written for millions and thousands of millions of dollars; it is an irrelevance. Furthermore, large businesses have the opportunity to use computer transfers. Frequently, they write cheques only to deal with outside creditors. However, small business, with, say, a couple of entities, frequently uses a cheque book as a bookkeeping instrument. The cheque butt is the basis of small business bookkeeping. In my experience in years gone by, it has been necessary to write an internal cheque just to keep the books straight and to identify the flow of money. A small businessman does not have his accountant sitting in the next room. He does not have a computer terminal on his desk into which he can key the transactions and have interaction within his own accounting procedures. When a small businessman gets home at night after a hard day's work, often the only way he can keep track of his expenditure is to write a cheque. Regularly, a small businessman writes a cheque only to transfer money within, say, a couple of accounts which are necessary to keep his business structure in place. Most frequently, the value of those cheques is under $5,000 but over $500. It is for cheques of such amounts and even those for smaller amounts that the major increase has occurred, in percentage terms, in the bank account debits tax. This is a major attack. We remember that that is added to the fact that, having been given the lead by the Commonwealth, the States have introduced financial institutions duties. That is another burden. No doubt, the States will take the tip from the Commonwealth and increase their tax further. I violently oppose such a mechanism of tax gathering. There are better ways. Our Leader has said that he will freeze government expenditure in real terms over his first three years of office. That is the message that small business will approve of more than anything else. That tells small business that we will pick up one of the major principles of business-that is, that, first, it establishes its turnover, and then it addresses its expenditure or costs. That has not been practised by this Government and many previous governments. Governments wait for the costs and the bureaucratic bids to come in, and then they decide how much they will tax Australians. The figure has reached 25.5 per cent of their national productivity, and that is beyond their capacity to pay. It is certainly beyond the capacity of the workers in our country to pay, whether they are small businessmen or pay as you earn taxpayers. Most people cannot afford that level of taxation. Our Leader has promised to freeze that amount and get it down. He will hold it and not let it grow. We will be given an opportunity to see the turnover dictate the expenditure. That is the way it always should have been. No one knows that better than those in small business. By netting about $80m, the legislation increases the tax burden of Australians. We concede the Government its right to impose taxes on the Australian people. After all, they voted the Government in and they got the government they deserved. Most of them recognise that now and wish that a change were imminent. A change is not imminent, because the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) does not have that sort of decision-making capacity. I think that we will find that his promises about the fringe benefits tax are more of a cosmetic nature than anything that will genuinely help the people who have been thrown out with the bath water as a baby might be. The whole issue is ridiculous. We all know it. We know what the Government has done. I think that the increase in the bank account debits tax is one of the worst things that could have been done to small business. I oppose it wholeheartedly. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(12.10) —Over the past 11 years, I have spoken more in this House on tax Bills than I have on any other subject. I believe that that reflects the public's concern in the vital area of taxation. It is a subject in which every Australian has an interest, whether he is a payer of taxation or a receiver from the revenue which taxation provides. This debate gives us a further opportunity to express our concern. I understood that we were to debate three Bills today-the Medicare Levy Bill, the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) and the Bank Account Debits Tax Amendment Bill. However, we debated the Medicare Levy Bill earlier. The two Bills before us reflect changes in taxation attitudes and rates which are important to every Australian. The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) covers a variety of programs and moves by the Government in dealing with its taxation reform package. That in itself is a misnomer. When one talks about tax reform, one talks about sim- plicity, the ability to interpret, and less paper. Yet, this tax reform package amounts to some 700 pages, which I would estimate to equal about 50 per cent of the original tax Act as I debated it in the years before the Labor Government was elected to office. It is still a very vital matter. Time does not allow me to debate every aspect of the Bills-that is, the taxation aspect and bank account transactions. However, I wish to highlight some of the issues. The first concerns deductibility in respect of cash bids for off-shore petroleum exploration permits. It is fair to say that while some concession will be given to taxpayers-that is, the exploration companies-it must be pointed out that there have been more countermoves made by this Labor Government as disincentives to exploration, especially for oil, than have been made against probably any other resource in Australia. It is only fitting that at this stage we should receive some offsetting compensation. When we consider compensation in the form of deductibility of expenditure, we must also consider the huge increases in taxation that have been faced by the Australian motorist, the Australian consumer, especially in the past three years. In that time, the excise on fuel has gone from a shade over 6c per litre to almost 24c at present. It has quadrupled in the 3 1/2 years that the Labor Government has been in office. That is a major imposition on the Australian people. The excise matter does not end there. It goes a little further, because State taxes affect the price of diesel fuel and petrol. I have asked the Acting Treasurer (Mr Hurford), who is at the table, for leave to incorporate in Hansard a table that I have obtained from the Parliamentary Library. The table shows that additional taxation impositions are borne by the people of the States of New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania. The significant factor is that those additional taxes are not levied in Queensland or the Northern Territory. Therefore, it gives some credence to the Queensland Government when that Government says that it is one of the lowest taxing States in the Commonwealth. I seek leave to incorporate the table in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Table B-16 BUSINESS FRANCHISE LICENCE FEES-PETROLEUM AS AT 30 JUNE 1984 (a) Licensing schemes required wholesale petroleum merchants, group wholesale petroleum merchants and retail petroleum merchants to be licensed. A licensee could carry on business only at the premises specified in the licence. Fees for a wholesale petroleum merchant's licence and a group wholesale petroleum merchant's licence were two-part levies: a flat-rate amount plus an assessed portion. In New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania, the assessed portion was based on a percentage of the value of motor spirit and diesel sold (including all duties payable) in the course of intrastate trade in a specified previous period. In Western Australia the assessed portion was based on the volume of motor spirit and diesel fuel sold in a specified previous period. Retail petroleum merchants' licence fees were generally flat-rate charges. New South Wales Victoria Western Australia South Australia Tasmania Wholesale petroleum merchants and group wholesale petroleum merchants Maximum licensing period... 1 month 1 month 1 year 1 month 1 month Licensing period commenced... First day of each month First day of each month 1 July First day of each month First day of each month Specified previous period... One month ended a month before licensing period commenced One month ended a month before licensing period commenced 12 months ended previous 31 March One month ended a month before licensing period commenced One month ended a month before licensing period commenced Fee payable... $50+8.4% of the value of motor spirit and 14% of the value of diesel fuel sold $50+7.8% of the value of motor spirit and 11% of the value of diesel fuel sold $500+2.10c per litre of motor spirit and 3.85c per litre of diesel fuel wholesaled $50+7.5% of the value of motor spirit and 9.8% of the value of diesel fuel sold $50+6.5% of the value of motor spirit and diesel fuel sold Retail petroleum merchants Maximum licensing period... Continuous 1 year 1 year 1 year Licensing period commenced... First day of each month 1 July Day the licence came into force 1 January Specified previous period... One month ended a month before licensing period commenced Fee payable... $5 (+8.4% of the value of motor spirit and 14% of the value of diesel fuel sold) (b) $50 $50 $50 (a) These fees were not levied in Queensland, the Northern Territory or the Australian Capital Territory. There was no group wholesale or retail petroleum merchant's licence in Western Australia. (b) The assessed portion applied only to those petroleum products purchased from sources other than a licensed wholesaler or group wholesaler. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I thank the House. This bears out the point, once again, that Queensland's claim of being a low taxing State is based on excises such as this and on the additional charges which other States make, but which Queensland does not. On behalf of the petroleum industry, I only hope that this gives some measure of reassurance for the exploration that is required in this country if we are to maintain the limited self-dependency that we have at the moment. I also draw to the attention of the House the amendment in connection with the interest withholding tax. I believe this is an important provision. It is interesting that this amendment is being made so shortly after the tax measure was introduced into this House. We all know that this was one of the panic reactions or panic announcements by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) when the dollar was under challenge, when it had slipped below 60c against the American currency and, as I understand it, under 100 yen against the Japanese currency. It was one of the measures that were introduced to allay the suspicion and concern of overseas investors in the Australian market-place. This might have some reaction in terms of Australia's current trading position. I understand that the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) is making an announcement on a major national export drive and this is one measure that could help. One of the announcements-I call them the panic announcements-concerned the Foreign Investment Review Board. As a result, the environment for Australian investment will be improved. Export controls are being considerably eased in connection with some commodities, but we still have the threat of a foreign credits tax on the books. I understand the legislation has not yet been made available for perusal. However, this is a major disincentive in a climate where the Minister is trying to promote exports overseas. I believe it is absolute insanity to have a foreign credits tax at this stage if we are to achieve what the Minister wants. Other taxes which are currently regarded as a tax on exports are the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax. We have yet to see any relief in an area where there is real concern. Mr Deputy Speaker, exporters within your own electorate are faced with the additional imposition of a fringe benefits tax, a capital gains tax and the non-deductibility of entertainment expenses. All of these impositions have a telling effect on the creation of an export culture within the Australian environment. If ever there were measures designed to dampen that export culture or not allow that culture to grow, it is those types of taxes. We have seen a massive erosion of export incentive grants. The Government has to go a long way further than introducing measures such as the interest withholding tax and the exemptions that might apply in that connection if we are to maintain the edge that is so necessary in the fierce competition overseas. Many of the answers lie at the door of the Government. It should reduce impositions which are currently in place. I cannot stress this enough for the Acting Treasurer, because he, above all others in this House, has a professional interest in taxation. He has a professional background and he knows how taxation affects the person in the street. We are talking about the taxing of ordinary persons, businesses and investments. We have to create an environment which is designed to resurrect this economy. I also mention, as has already been mentioned by members of the Opposition who have spoken in this debate, the reinstatement of the full tax exemption on the pay and allowances for the part time service of members of the Defence Force reserves. It was predictable that members of the Reserve forces would be taxed on the full amount they received. A climate was created to take away the incentive for people to join the defence forces. We have the ridiculous situation of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) going on national television to indicate an interest in these Reserve forces when everyone knows that in the long run the full taxation of Reserve Force pay would be a major disincentive. Hopefully, with the Dibb report on the Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities encouraging a greater participation by the Defence Force reserves, particularly in northern Australia, people will come back into the forces and play a very vital part in the defence of this country. The removal of that exemption had an adverse effect on the security of Australia, which was very much at risk while it was in place. I would also like to mention that provisional tax has escalated by 11 per cent. It has become traditional for the Government to index provisional tax at an amount greater than the expected rate of inflation for the next 12 months and, indeed, greater than what it was for the previous 12 months. As I understand it, the inflation rate for 30 June 1986 was 8.4 per cent. The prediction in the Budget was for an 8 per cent inflation rate. Yet the Government has not yet been able to explain adequately why 11 per cent will now be the target figure for the growth of provisional tax, for the Medicare levy at 1 1/4c in the dollar and also for general income tax rates. It is important to realise the pressures on business at the moment because of provisional tax. I know, I understand and I approve of the manner in which provisional tax is charged. However, I do not believe that the Government should impose a percentage greater than the rate of inflation. I draw that matter to the attention of the Minister. Perhaps he might explain why the 11 per cent is the target figure. He should bear in mind particularly that any taxpayer who wants to alter the amount of provisional tax that he pays, which is his right, is subject to large penalties if he incorrectly estimates income, for the most sincere reasons, and pays less provisional tax than he should. I believe that an 11 per cent escalation is quite unfair. I also mention primary production, particularly livestock valuations. As I interpret these measures, it will now be obligatory for primary producers to adopt the improved or increased values for livestock that were set from June 1984. It is now mandatory for those values to be accepted. Perhaps that is fair enough because, as we go along the way, I believe those aspects should be picked up. I want to deal more specifically with the fact that within the country at the moment a tremendous accumulated loss has been carried forward in respect of the primary industries and primary producers of Australia. I was wondering whether that figure is calculated. Let us look at the estimates of farm income for the next 12 months as opposed to what they were in the last 12 months. I understand that there is a tremendous loss carried forward in the sugar industry which, in its way, is a contingent liability of the government of the day. These losses have to be borne in the future if and when these industries become profitable. I just want to address another aspect of the losses incurred on farms in Australia at the moment. Those of us who have rural constituencies know that there is a great difficulty in trying to provide some type of income support for the farmer on the land. Mr Deputy Speaker, I believe you understand that quite well. I believe that there should be some form of income support but I do not believe that the measures that the farmers have to adopt to get that type of income support do not give the farmers that we know, the traditional family farmer, any pride. It has been suggested to me-again, I raise this matter with the Minister in charge of this Bill-that a remedy might quite well be that that income support be provided from the cashing by the government of the day of those losses that are to be carried forward into the future. I mean by that that such a loss would be reduced, as far as its applicability in future years is concerned, against future income and would be cashed in the form of some type of income support no greater than the type of income support that is now available. This might be a means by which we can get cash into the pocket of the individual farmer in the distressed conditions that are being faced right across Australia. It is not only in the commodity market that this distress is being felt. It is being felt in drought areas; it is being felt in areas that have been ravaged by natural disasters, as was the north of Queensland this year in respect of the banana crop. There will be massive tax losses to be carried forward. I suggest to the Minister that the Government might investigate cashing these losses to be carried forward as a logical means by which it can put cash in the hands of the individual for household support. I stress that some of the farmers facing huge debts at the moment as well as huge interest rates are not able to produce the funds within their own hands to provide for normal household support items. I believe that what I have suggested might be a way out of the present problem. I wish to deal quickly with the bank transactions tax, the bank account transaction tax, or the bank account debits tax, as it is called-- Mr Nehl —It is the BAD tax. Mr BRAITHWAITE —It is the BAD tax; the honourable member is absolutely right. I should have asked him first. My colleague has described it very well. My confusion, of course, arose because this is not the only tax that is levied on financial institutions. They collect taxes levied by many of the States throughout Australia. For the record I wish to have incorporated in Hansard a table showing the financial institutions duty as at 30 June 1984 and the manner in which this duty is applied over the States of New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and South Australia. I seek leave to have that table incorporated. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Table B-3 FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS DUTY AS AT 30 JUNE 1984(a) New South Wales Victoria Western Australia South Australia General rate(b)... 0.03% on dutiable receipts of registered financial institutions to a maximum of $300 on any receipt 0.03% on dutiable receipts of registered financial institutions to a maximum of $300 on any receipt 0.05% on dutiable receipts of registered financial institutions to a maximum of $500 on any receipt 0.04% on dutiable receipts of registered financial institutions to a maximum of $400 on any receipt Short-term money market rate(c)... 0.005% per month on 1/3 of the average daily liability of the dealer during the month 0.005% per month on 1/3 of the average daily liability of the dealer during the month 0.005% per month on 1/10 of the average daily liability of the dealer during the month 0.005% per month on 1/12 of the average daily liability of the dealer during the month (a) This duty was levied only in New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and South Australia. (b) This duty was levied on registered financial institutions whose dutiable receipts exceeded $5 million in the twelve months preceding the month of assessment or $416 666 in the month preceding the month of assessment. Financial institutions subject to the duty included banks, permanent building societies, credit unions, dealers in securities, trustee companies and other specified credit providers. Insurance companies, superannuation funds and medical or hospital benefits organisations were not liable to pay the duty. (c) In most States, an investment of not les than $50 000 for a period not exceeding 185 days was recognised as a short-term dealing. The legislation of each State distinguished between different classes of short-term dealers: The rates shown in the table applied to registered financial institutions which were registered as official short-term money market dealers. Table B-4 DEBITS DUTY AS AT 30 JUNE 1984(a) Tasmania Financial institutions including banks, permanent building societies and specified credit unions were required to pay duty at the rate of $0.15 for each debit made to a taxable account. The definition of a `taxable account' excluded government accounts for public purposes, pension or public benefits accounts under specified Commonwealth and State Acts, certain accounts relating to hospitals, ambulances and friendly societies, and accounts used for clearing transactions between banks. (a) This duty was levied only in Tasmania. Mr BRAITHWAITE —As I understand it, there has been, basically, an increase of over 40 per cent in this tax. Again I stress that the implications of this tax do not end with the Commonwealth's imposition of it at this stage. It will have far greater ramifications throughout all of Australia, except for the States of Tasmania and Queensland. I reiterate the point I was making earlier that, in respect of the high rates of tax that people say Australians and some States pay, Queensland can quite honestly claim credit for the fact that the tax on petrol and the tax on bank transactions are not applicable in that State. Mr Nehl —It is a great Government. Mr BRAITHWAITE —It is a great Government and I believe that it is some source of security to the people of Queensland who transact their business daily. The shadow Minister, the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), put the small business aspects of this matter very succinctly by pointing out that this is, yet again, another tax on the persons who are trying to make a business, expand our economy and do what they can for our trade prospects. The debate on the fringe benefits tax has been wide-ranging. I want to give an example concerning the stupidity of this tax. It relates to this Parliament. In the last couple of months I received a letter from the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) asking me to detail on my car charter allowance form any private journeys. This presumes, of course, that a member is allowed to use that charter allowance for private purposes, which is an absolute nonsense. But this letter predicts that members will use this allowance for private purposes. My instruction was that for every journey I had to log the number of kilometres travelled privately and submit it with my request to the Department of the Special Minister of State for the reimbursement of that claim. I was told that somebody in the Department would take a record of that and then the Department would remit to the Treasury the amount of tax on my private journey. If ever there was an absolute nonsense it is the paperwork that is involved in the logging of these journeys. I can tell honourable members that I have better things to do when I am travelling around my electorate than logging kilometres travelled. I also point out that one government department pays the other. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Acting Treasurer)(12.31) —If no more honourable members want to speak in this debate on the second reading I am pleased to wind it up and to thank all of those honourable members who have taken part, particularly, of course, my colleagues on the Government side. Not a lot of what was said from the Opposition side has been relevant to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1986 and the Bank Account Debits Tax Amendment Bill 1986. That is par for the course with taxation Bills; debate has always ranged very widely in this House. However, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), in leading for the Opposition, made reference to the proposal to introduce a $200 filing fee for taxation appeals to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I have to note, of course, that this proposal is not part of these Bills. It is a proposal which will be put to the House in a Bill shortly. It is true that taxation appeals to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal are to be subject to that filing fee, but that is true of all appeals to the AAT, other than in income maintenance matters. This measure reflects the fact that taxation appeals are not now within the old boards of review system, but within the AAT system. Although the proposal is one of legal policy rather than taxation policy, I have to observe, as it affects taxation policy, that taxpayers will still have entirely free of charge the opportunity to go to the Commissioner of Taxation for a review of a particular assessment; that is, he has his right to object to the assessment within that taxation system. If taxpayers wish to take the matter further that fee is payable, it is true; but if the taxpayer is successful at the AAT the fee will be refundable. The fee is designed to help to defray the costs of the AAT appeals just as court fees are payable to help to defray court costs. Years ago the first fee that applied was $2. If we applied to it the inflation rate which, of course, was the sad result of so many years of Liberal and Country Party government the fee would be much greater. As I said, now that these taxation appeals are within the AAT system it is right and proper that there should be a uniform fee. Otherwise, the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) is very technical in nature. I remind the House that it allows income tax deductions for cash bids paid for certain off-shore petroleum exploration permits, and that was announced as long ago as 15 January 1986. It also provides for profit arising from the death or destruction of certain livestock to be offset on a herd basis over up to 10 years against the cost the replacement stock and so on. It is certainly a very technical Bill in nature. This is also the case with the Bank Accounts Debits Tax Amendment Bill. It brings the Australian Capital Territory in line with the States in the matter of the application of this tax. If we were not doing this there would be an awful outcry as to why the Australian Capital Territory had that particular advantage. The second reading amendment moved by the Opposition was very predictable, nitpicking stuff. Empty rhetoric is the phrase that best sums it up. Mention was even made of the AAT fee, which, as I have explained, is not even covered in this Bill. It is totally irrelevant to mention the fee in this debate. The Government rejects the amendment and I commend both Bills to the House. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Carlton's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr J. B. Mildren) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 50 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 13 —— Baldwin, P. J, Jakobsen, C. A,Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A. Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J. Bilney, G. N. Kent, L. Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J. Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C. Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E. Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V. Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J. Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J. Cohen, B. McLeay, LeoCross, M. D. Maher, M. J. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Martin, S. P. Darling, E. E. Mayer, H. Dawkins, J. S. Milton, P. Duffy, M. J. Morris, AllanDuncan, P. Morris, PeterEdwards, Ronald Mountford, J. G. Fatin, W. F. O'Keefe, N. P. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Price, L. R. S. Free, R. V. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W. Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H. Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R. Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. West, S. J. Hollis, C. Willis, R. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Hurford, C. J. Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B. Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S. Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J. Braithwaite, R. A. McVeigh, D. T. Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G. Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C. Cameron, Donald Nehl, G. BCameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S. Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R. Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K. Coleman, W. P. Robinson, IanConnolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C. Conquest, B. J. Ruddock, P. M. Cowan, D. B. Sharp, J. Downer, A. J. G. Shipton, R. F. Drummond, P. H. Sinclair, I. McC. Edwards, Harry Slipper, P. N. Fife, W. C. Smith, W. Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M. Fisher, Peter Sullivan, K. J. Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Watson, D. J. H. Hodgman, W. M. Webster, A. P. Hunt, R. J. D. White, P. N. D. Lamb, A. H. Hawker, D. P. M. Dubois, S. G. Macphee, I. M. Jones, Barry Cameron, IanCleeland, P. R. Adermann, A. E. Punch, G. F. Jull, D. F. Keating, P. J. Wilson, I. B. C. Jacobi, R. Hodges, J. C. Charles, D. E. Brown, N. 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. Consideration resumed from 17 September, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. 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. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —As a matter of courtesy, Madam Speaker, I would mention that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) will be absent from Question Time today. Mr COLEMAN —I refer the Prime Minister to his answer yesterday in which he said that the circumstances of disabled Australians who have to pay fringe benefits tax on live-in help had only been brought to his attention in the `last few days', and that the Opposition had been `derelict' in its duty in not raising this issue previously. Is the Prime Minister aware that I wrote to the Treasurer on 5 June this year, over four months ago, concerning a constituent who employed a live-in assistant to care for her quadriplegic son? Is the Prime Minister aware that on 2 September, over four weeks ago, the Acting Treasurer wrote to me confirming that the accommodation and meals provided to the quadriplegic's live-in assistant would be subject to fringe benefits tax? Is the Prime Minister aware that the Acting Treasurer informed me that the Government had received representations seeking exemption from the fringe benefits tax but, after very careful consideration, had decided `for reasons of equity' that no more exemptions to the fringe benefits tax would be allowed? What changed between 2 September and yesterday that led to the Government's sudden awareness of the alleged unintended consequences of the fringe benefits tax? Mr HAWKE —The answer to the question is `No' and `No'. It may come as some surprise to the honourable member for Wentworth to know that his activities are of as much interest to me as they are to the people who will be engaged in the pre-selection for Wentworth in the upcoming period. The Treasurer and the Acting Treasurer do not regard the activities of the member for Wentworth as sufficiently important to come racing up to my office to tell me that they have had a letter from him. Mr SIMMONS —Will the Prime Minister inform the House of the effects of having no fringe benefits tax? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the honourable member for his question. Yes, I can give him some indication of the effects of having no fringe benefits tax-effects which obviously were in the mind of the Leader of the Opposition when, in his more principled days, he recognised the importance of having such a tax. One obvious effect would be that the absence of a fringe benefits tax would have an adverse effect on the capacity of government to finance the substantial tax cuts that will be coming in in December this year and in July next year. Those tax cuts will provide tax relief of about $12 a week for the average worker and will cut the top marginal tax rate from 60c to 49c in the dollar and the marginal rate for the average worker from 46c to 40c in the dollar. If one did not have the revenue from fringe benefits tax, clearly one would not have the same capacity to finance those cuts. Another effect of the absence of a fringe benefits tax would be the gross unfairness of not having such a tax in place, as was pointed out in a principled and honest fashion by the Deputy Leader of the National Party last week. I quote what he said: You should not allow company executives to have half their salary paid by kind without tax, such as providing a house, interest free loans, and Mercedes Benz cars and free education for their children. He concluded by saying: This is obviously a tax avoidance scheme. The Deputy Leader of the National Party was principled and honest in making that statement. Let me take a couple of examples of fringe benefits packages. Let us look at the remuneration package for a marketing executive based on information provided by accounting firms. The marketing executive gets $65,000 in cash and fringe benefits totalling $23,350. That is made up of a non-accountable allowance of $3,000; motor vehicle lease, $8,000; club society subscriptions $600; a hostess allowance-that is a lovely description-$1,000; home telephone, $300; medical expenses, $650; low interest housing loans, $4,000; low interest personal loan, $300; school fees, $4,000; holidays travel, $1,500. Those sums add up to a total salary equivalent of $123,375. Because the package is made up in that way, in that case those fringe benefits will allow that marketing executive to avoid a total of $35,025 in tax. Let us look at the position of a banking executive. His salary is $85,000, with a fringe benefits package totalling $31,150. In that case the package comprises a motor vehicle lease, $12,000; hostess allowance, $750; home telephone, $300; medical expenses, $800; low interest housing loan, $10,000; low interest personal loan, $1,500; school fees, $4,000; holiday travel, $1,800. Taken together with a cash salary component, that is a salary equivalent of $162,875, which gives a tax avoidance of $46,725. It is quite clear that the Leader of the Opposition, in saying yesterday that he is against the fringe benefits tax in principle, clearly established once again that he is the friend of wealthy tax dodgers and an opponent of fairness in the taxation system. Mr IAN ROBINSON —I refer the Prime Minister to the rural task force established at his initiative and to the initial report of the task force, which claimed that people had been misled about Government decisions and that the fringe benefits tax was a clear example of this. Is it a fact that this report stated that `Simply, people will be required to declare fringe benefits on the employee group certificate or buy tax stamps as is required by section 26 (e) or pay a special tax' when in fact no such choice exists? Does the Prime Minister agree with this statement by the task force, or does he recognise that even his task force does not understand the fringe benefits tax and that they are guilty of totally misleading country employers as to the operation of the fringe benefits tax? Mr HAWKE —I believe that the excellent task force to which the honourable member refers, in the course of doing an outstanding job of bringing the policies of this Government to the people of rural Australia, understands the fringe benefits tax. One of the elements that will be taken into account in the review which we are undertaking and to which I referred yesterday undoubtedly will be the input that we get from the work of the members of that excellent task force. If we are to talk about misrepresentation in this area of the fringe benefits tax, let us look again at what the Leader of the Opposition has said. Honourable members of this House will recall that in the last week in which we sat I referred to the position of the Leader of the Opposition. It is appropriate in the light of what he had to say yesterday-that he is against the principle of a fringe benefits tax. His words were: `The principle of it is wrong'. I ask the members of this House, as I know the members of the Australian public will do, to compare what the Leader of the Opposition said on the steps of Parliament House yesterday-that the principle is wrong-with what he said just 12 months ago. I have already quoted this to the House, but it is a pertinent reminder of how this man has been changed from a person of some principles to the complete political opportunist. The man, who said yesterday that the principle is wrong, also said just 12 months ago, when he agreed with what Mr Valder has said about the disease of the fringe benefits system: If you are able to cut the top marginal rate of personal income tax, then it is fair in that context and that context alone, to do something about fringe benefits. Twelve months age this man, this complete political opportunist, was saying it is fair, proper and right to have a fringe benefits tax to cure the disease of tax avoidance which is haemorrhaging the tax collection system in this country. Twelve months ago the honourable member for Bennelong said that it is fair; it is right; it is necessary to stop the haemorrhaging of this system: But yesterday the complete opportunist said that it is wrong in principle to have such a tax. Mr LINDSAY —Can the Minister for Trade inform the House what action has been taken to implement the Prime Minister's announcement in his address to the nation on 11 June 1986 that a national export drive will be conducted over the next two years? Mr DAWKINS —Yesterday, I had an unscheduled opportunity to talk about the better opportunities that now exist for the export of agricultural commodities. Today, I had the opportunity to launch in Canberra, in conjunction with a nationwide launch in each capital city, the national export drive which was foreshadowed by the Prime Minister in his 11 June address to the nation. The reason for the national export drive is to provide new hope for our manufacturing sector to export more of its output. In Australia we export less than 15 per cent of our manufacturing output, which compares very poorly with most other countries. New Zealand, for instance, exports 25 per cent of its output; Canada exports 32 per cent; West Germany exports 30 per cent; and Sweden exports 45 per cent. In Australia, because we have done so relatively poorly in our exports of manufactured goods, we have relied too much on the narrow base of agriculture and mineral and energy raw materials. That is not to say that they will not continue to play an important part, but we want to see a much better performance on the part of our manufacturing sector. The reasons for this poor performance in the past lie in the totally shortsighted and narrow minded policies that our opponents pursued for most of the last 30 years, which saw our manufacturing sector become increasingly inward looking, increasingly obsessed by the domestic market and totally oblivious to the opportunities which exist outside the Australian market. In this campaign we are alerting both management and unions to the opportunities which now exist, as a result of Australia's greatly enhanced competitiveness, to compete effectively on international markets. It is a sobering thought that, if we were able to lift the amount of our manufactured exports from the current level of 15 per cent to a modest 20 per cent, we would be exporting some $3 billion more worth of manufactured goods. Of course, this would have a very substantial effect on narrowing the current account deficit. This is not something which the Government can do on its own; it needs very much the co-operation of management and also the co-operation of unions to ensure that industry can respond to these great new opportunities which now exist. This national export drive is designed to focus particularly on the 350 largest and most potentially successful exporting firms in the manufactures and services sector. If each of those 350, on average, could export another $10m worth a year, that again would reduce our current account deficit by more than $3 billion. This is a modest target and one which can be achieved. It requires the wholehearted co-operation of the business community and, indeed, the trade union movement. Through our efforts and through the efforts of the Australian Trade Commission which is responsible for running this campaign, I think we can see over the years ahead that manufacturers' exports will make a great contribution to our trade performance, will as a result make them more competitive with imports and, as a result, see manufacturing in Australia restored to a position of much greater prominence and making a much greater contribution to both employment and our economic prosperity. Mr N.A. Brown —I remind the Prime Minister of the question that I asked on 25 September on the effect of the fringe benefits tax on the youth traineeship scheme. I pointed out to him then that an employer in the country who wanted a Government grant of $1,000 would have to pay at least $1,100 in fringe benefits tax on board and lodging and such like for the trainee. Has the Prime Minister obtained the advice that he promised on 25 September to obtain, as to whether the fringe benefits tax would be payable in this case of the youth traineeship scheme? If not, will he now add this matter to the review of unintended consequences that he undertook yesterday to set up? Mr HAWKE —The information that was referred to by the honourable member has not at this stage been brought to my attention. Let me say this: I do not necessarily accept any figures put to this House by the honourable member-there is a very good reason for that-but I indicate that in the review that is being undertaken the matter to which he has referred will be looked at. Mr STAPLES —Can the Acting Treasurer inform the House of the anomalies in the previous tax system which the fringe benefits tax is designed to redress? Mr HURFORD —Some of those anomalies are set out in the White Paper on the reform of the Australian taxation system. I remind honourable members that the loss of revenue by people not paying any tax on their perks, as set out in that White Paper, is no less than $700m. Some details of the potential tax uncollected are as follows: On the provision of cars, it was to the order of $280m; on the provision of subsidised housing, it was to the order of $80m; and, on the provision of low interest loans, it was to the order of $90m. These are the sorts of anomalies to which the Opposition would have us return with no fringe benefits tax. That is its idea of equity. Let me come to another couple of cases in addition to the ones that were given by the Prime Minister as to how individuals, on the receipt of very high salary packages, were scoring under the old system. Now there will be some collection of taxes, at least from the employer, under the fringe benefits tax. Let us take the case of a chief executive officer. The salary in his package was $90,000 and the total fringe benefits were $32,650 which, when added together, made a total package of $132,650. I will give some details of the total fringe benefits. The non-accountable allowance was $5,000, the motor vehicle lease was $10,000 and the club subscription was $1,000. I remind the honourable member for Jagajaga and the House that these figures are taken from actual cases. Then we have the hostess allowance of $1,500, home telephone of $300, medical expenses of $650 and a low interest housing loan of $6,000. There was no low interest personal loan in this case, but there were school fees of $6,000, holiday travel of $2,000 and home maintenance of $200. Opposition members interjecting- Mr HURFORD —We are getting a lot of interjections from Opposition members because they do not like to hear these specific cases; they do not want to know about the muddying of the waters they are creating and how that is working against the good principle of obtaining equity and fairness in the taxation system. Those fringe benefits add up to $32,650. The equivalent of the salary plus fringe benefits would be $171,625. The tax avoided in the case of this chief executive officer was no less than $48,975, which in part made up the $700m of tax avoided which the Opposition is so keen to continue to see being avoided. Mr DRUMMOND —I refer the Prime Minister to the fact that if brewery workers drink free beer on their employers' premises, no fringe benefits tax is payable. Is the Prime Minister aware that the Swan Brewery Co. Ltd in Perth has decided to give a carton of beer each week to employees in an effort to prevent employees from driving home after drinking at work? Can the Prime Minister explain why the company's adoption of a socially responsible policy should transform a non-taxable work practice into a taxable fringe benefit? Mr HAWKE —Some six years ago I could have spoken about this subject with a greater degree of authority, but I cannot bring personal experience to bear now. I think the House is getting increasingly amused by the pathetic tactic of the Opposition in giving cases of possible difficulty or anomaly as some reason for sustaining the position of the Leader of the Opposition that as a matter of principle there should be no tax. Of course, that is something the Opposition has to sort out because, as I have indicated, the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, for instance, totally disagrees with the Leader of the Opposition. He believes that it is wrong in principle not to have such a tax. It is increasingly obvious that an overwhelming proportion of the people of Australia agree with the principle of a fringe benefits tax. Let me give as evidence of that the communication I have recently had from Premier Burke of Western Australia. It is well known that Premier Burke has raised some questions about the operation of the tax, but it is very important that we should understand what he had to say. The submission that he sent represents the work of a number of organisations, which I will name. The organisations included the Primary Industry Association of W.A. (Inc), the Australian Mines and Metals Association (Inc), the Chamber of Mines of WA (Inc), the Confederation of Western Australian Industry (Inc), the Western Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Inc) and the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of WA (Inc). The submission that was sent to me by that very broad representative body of organisations in Western Australia stated: . . . taxation of fringe benefits is a necessary part of any rational personal income taxation system. There we have it. We could not have a more widely representative body. There is the Western Australian Premier saying: `I have consulted with all these people. There are some questions about the administration and some anomalies to which I want to draw your attention, but I do that on the basis that I have spoken to all these people and they have said that taxation of fringe benefits is a necessary part of any rational personal income taxation system'. Mr Tuckey —I raise a point of order. Would the Prime Minister table the document from which he has been reading? Madam SPEAKER —Is the Prime Minister reading from a confidential document? Mr Hawke —Yes. Madam Speaker, I do not have it with me, but I am more than prepared to make available the whole document to which I referred. Mr Tuckey —The one from which you were reading. Mr Hawke —I am not giving you this document. Madam Speaker, I am more than prepared to make available the whole document, but I do not have it here. Mr DUNCAN —Can the Special Minister of State inform the House whether allegations in connection with the recent extraordinarily high defamation settlement between QTQ9 and the Queensland Premier have been raised with him for investigation by the National Crime Authority? Mr YOUNG —I thank the honourable member for Makin for his question, which I suppose is appropriate while we are on the topic of fringe benefits. I am aware of some speculation about the unusual aspects of the settlement referred to by the honourable member for Makin, but at this time no matters have been raised with me which would involve consideration by the National Crime Authority. I note that questions have been raised as to the amount of the settlement, which seems to far exceed amounts normally paid in such cases and which exceeded the estimates of most experts in this field; why the case was settled out of court against the advice of the relevant advisers; and the reasons for Mr Bond wishing to settle the matter. I note that he is quoted as saying: As we had just completed a substantial investment in Queensland in the form of the purchase of Castlemaine Tooheys, I took the view that it was not in the best interests of the company nor the shareholders to be involved in a long and drawn out defamation action with the Queensland Premier. I understand that a genuine settlement of such an action may be a legitimate business deduction from the income assessable for taxation for a company. It may be, therefore, that the Commissioner of Taxation will wish to assess the genuineness of any deduction in this case. I say further to honourable members, because of the libel suit arising out of statements which were made on the television station, which have reappeared in the Sydney Morning Herald of last Saturday: If they knew where Joh was going to buy his next property, they would want to get the one next door. Joh does not believe in pork barrelling; he believes in whole abattoirs. Around Duaringa, where his latest property is, there are 429 voters and Joh spent $24,000 a head on improvements. He spent $1.2m on a road just after he bought the property and $4m on a dam- Mr Tim Fischer —I raise a point of order. Madam Speaker, I submit that the Minister is now offending standing order 145 in as much as the question related to one aspect pertaining to the Queensland Premier and libel. Clearly the Minister is now going on to matters totally separate from the question of libel and under standing order 145 his answer is now no longer relevant to the question. Madam SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr YOUNG —Just after he bought the property $1.2m was spent on the road. There had not been a grader on it for seven years. But as soon as Joh got the property, $1.2m was spent to fix up the bitumen. Then, every time there was a storm, once every couple of years, water used to come across the road. So the voters got $4m for a new bridge and another $4m for a new dam. Young John Bjelke-Petersen was interviewed and asked about all this and he said: `Well, it will come in handy, this $400,000, to pay off a few debts because Dad borrowed $3m overseas in some foreign currency'. He was not sure whether it was yen or American dollars. Obviously the $400,000 was very acceptable. It seems to me that with all these things going on in Queensland, our old mate Russ Hinze will want to be down on those plastic knees of his a bit praying to someone above Joh for a better result at the next election than the National Party had at the last one. Mr ROCHER —Is the Prime Minister aware that some employers, who are not under legal or other obligation to do so, insure their employees with a view to compensating their families in the event of accidental death? Following the tragic death of an employee of Western Mining Corporation as a result of a road accident on the Laverton Road last Friday night, will he inquire about the application of fringe benefits tax to the $75,000 payout to the widow of the deceased? Does the Prime Minister consider that the $37,000 fringe benefits tax now also payable by Western Mining Corporation is one of the unintended consequences of the FBT legislation that should be scrubbed? Mr HAWKE —On the face of what the honourable member has said, I do not accept that the employer-employee relationship, which is a necessary part of the fringe benefits tax imposition, exists in this case. I am not suggesting that the honourable member has in any way attempted to mislead the House; I am simply saying that, on the facts as they have been put by him, it does not seem to me that the necessary nexus applies and therefore this case would not attract the fringe benefits tax. Having said that that is my first impression as a result of what the honourable member said, I am quite prepared to have that situation looked at. Mr MOUNTFORD —I draw the attention of the Minister for Aviation to the recent spate of light aircraft accidents, one involving fatalities, at Bankstown Airport and to the fact that much of the area around the airport is zoned residential and industrial and therefore offers very little in the way of open space to pilots who need to make emergency landings soon after takeoff. Will the Minister consider the upgrading of safety checks on aircraft departing Bankstown to prevent such tragedies? Further, will he support moves to transfer pilot training operations from Bankstown to less built up areas such as Hoxton Park, Camden or Schofields, with an ultimate view to closing Bankstown Airport altogether? Mr PETER MORRIS —I am aware of the honourable member's concern about operations at Bankstown Airport and the impact these have on the region. After all, Bankstown is one of the most important airports in the nation, considering its training and other activities and the fact that it has an average of 21,000 movements each month. At the same time it is a base for our very important general aviation industry and a major employment centre. On the question of upgrading safety checks, I point out that pilots are required to conduct daily operational safety checks of the aircraft and in addition inspections are required of the aircraft before each flight. Apart from that, the aircraft themselves are also subject to scheduled checks and maintenance by licensed engineers and departmental officers conduct regular surveillance of the aircraft and the checking procedures. In addition, pilots in their training programs are trained to cope with emergency situations such as the loss of an engine on takeoff. On all the advice available to me in respect of the alternative aerodromes that the honourable member suggested, I must say that no additional safety is offered at these. While I commend the honourable member for his concern in this matter, given all the circumstances and the importance of Bankstown Airport to the economy of the Sydney region, I am afraid that I could not support his suggestion to close the airport. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Prime Minister to an answer given by the Minister for Primary Industry on the World Today program today. In answer to a question on the effect of the review of the fringe benefits tax on the rural community, the Minister said: I could not answer that with any certainty because the Prime Minister has not canvassed what is in his mind with the Cabinet and that is basically because he would be waiting until Mr Keating comes back to Australia. Is that a correct assessment of the situation? Is the Prime Minister awaiting the return of the Treasurer for his riding instructions on changes to the fringe benefits tax? In the light of this, can the Prime Minister give any guarantee that any changes to the fringe benefits tax will be in place by 28 October, as widely reported in the media? In the light of the evident confusion, will he extend the date for the first payment of fringe benefits tax, or will taxpayers be fined for late lodgment or incorrect returns as a result of the evident Government incompetence over the introduction and administration of this tax? Mr HAWKE —I do not have any trouble in my communications with the Treasurer and I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition should concentrate on getting his own lines of communication right with the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, who has simply said that the Leader of the Opposition is unprincipled. It is as simple as that. The Leader of the Opposition has tried to gag the Deputy Leader of the National Party, but fortunately there are still sufficient men of principle in the Opposition who are prepared to stand up and say that they will not share the totally unprincipled position of the Leader of the Opposition. So let the Leader of the Opposition concentrate not on gagging or attempting to gag the people behind him, but on getting a principled position himself on the fringe benefits tax. It is quite clear that the Treasurer and I maintain fairly constant contact when he is out of the country or when I am out of the country. I have even been known to contact him from China, where the difficulties of communication at times are well known. We stay in fairly constant contact and indeed I had a long conversation with the Treasurer at midnight Canberra time on Saturday, when it was about 9 o'clock in the morning in New York. Amongst a number of things, we discussed this issue. There is no comfort for the Leader of the Opposition in any suggested difference between the Treasurer and me. As for the more substantive part of the Leader of the Opposition's question, perhaps if he has time to spare from his wriggling and squirming from a position of principle to look at the facts, he will know that the first instalment under the fringe benefits tax is currently required to be paid on 28 October. The Government intends to complete the review process to which I have referred in time to announce any changes before that date. It is open to the Commissioner of Taxation under the current law to extend the time for payment if those affected by changes can demonstrate to the Commissioner that they have genuine difficulty in assessing their liability to pay the FBT because of those changes. The Commissioner has already stated that tax will not be payable in cases in which it is decided to remove an FBT liability under current legislation. Mr BRUMBY —Has the Minister for Primary Industry seen the reported comments of the Federal Treasurer of the Liberal Party of Australia, Mr John Elliott, who said: When the next conservative government gets in I can tell you that the dollar is going to jump but we are probably not going to win an election by saying that. Can the Minister indicate to the House the effect of a jump in the value of the Australian dollar on the primary producers of this country? Mr KERIN —First of all, Mr Elliott is being a bit hypothetical, but also rather accurate when he says that the Liberal Party will not win an election because the Party is so divided that there is no chance of its winning an election. The Party cannot straighten out its policies on any substantial issue before the Australian public. The Federal Treasurer of the Liberal Party, Mr Elliott, is not one of the new breed of Liberals. He is not in the Katharine West party or the Andrew Hay party or whatever party is wandering around. He was quoted as saying that the dollar would jump under a conservative government. It comes as no surprise because our experience under former governments tells us that the Liberals supported an overvalued exchange rate. In the absence of a wages policy, they need an overvalued exchange rate if they are to have any hope of controlling inflation. The farmers of this country-- Mr Peter Fisher —They will be better off. Mr KERIN —Better off with an overvalued exchange rate? That is very interesting. The honourable member for Mallee wants an overvalued exchange rate for the farmers. It will be interesting when he tells the people in Mildura about that. It is only the value of the exchange rate that has been keeping the dried fruits industry afloat for quite a while. It has been of great assistance to the dried vine fruits industry. The farmers know full well the implications of a higher exchange rate. Every percentage increase in the exchange rate reduces farmers' returns by over $100m. As a result, the 30 per cent depreciation that has been experienced over the past two years or so has resulted in farm incomes being over $2 billion higher than they otherwise would have been. In other words, farm incomes would be virtually wiped out if we had the Liberal high exchange rate policy. What makes that policy worse is that the Opposition has been stumping the countryside claiming that if it were in government it would reduce interest rates. It is clear that it has no intention of doing so. It needs high interest rates along with high exchange rates. All the criticism that we have heard about the current level of interest rates comes to nought. The Opposition will not address our balance of trade problem. It will not address fundamental macro-economics and the value of the exchange rate devaluation to Australia's export earners. It does not have a clue about basic, fundamental macro-economic management, and the sooner that it wakes up the better. Mr CONQUEST —My question is to the Acting Treasurer. Will an employer who is assessed by the Taxation Office as being liable to taxation on a number of alleged fringe benefits, which the employer considers are an unintended consequence of the legislation, be required to lodge a $200 fee for each item under appeal to the Taxation Office? Mr HURFORD —For a start, the employer through his tax agent, as the honourable gentleman knows, does not have to go to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal initially. He can put in an objection for the Commissioner to make a further decision and to review the particular case. I do not take the point that has been made in the honourable gentleman's question. It is only after that process has been gone through and if the employer, through his tax agent, wants to pursue an objection through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal that there is a fee. It would depend on whether the objection related to one assessment or more than one as to whether there would be more than one fee. If the employer is successful, the fee would be refundable. Mr GAYLER —I address my question to the Minister for Primary Industry. I ask him whether he can report to the House on recent congressional activity in the United States which has the potential of adversely affecting Australia's sugar exports? Can he describe progress made to improve the domestic strength of the sugar industry? I ask the Minister specifically to relate to the dimension of adverse activity which might occur to average cane growers in north Queensland. Mr KERIN —I well appreciate the interest that he takes in the sugar industry in his part of Queensland and throughout the entire industry. There has been activity in the United States Congress, under which some interests are trying to legislate for the reallocation of United States sugar quotas in favour of the Philippines, Ecuador and the Caribbean countries. The effect of that legislation would be to reduce by possibly up to $5,000 the gross income from Australian sugar producers. The United States market is quite lucrative for us. The Minister for Trade has made personal representations to Mr Clayton Yeutter, the United States trade representative, expressing serious concern at the disregard for the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade principle of non-discrimination that is shown in the proposed legislation to reallocate United States sugar quotas. He in turn has written to key United States congressmen expressing the Administration's opposition to the legislation. The Foreign Minister has also pursued the matter while in Washington. In addition, personal approaches at the most senior diplomatic level have been made to prominent members of the United States Administration, particularly the sponsors of the amendment and to influential congressmen. We have emphasised our serious concern. The amendment was attached to one piece of legislation and that has now been wiped out. It has been attached also to another piece of legislation and we await to see how that will go. The Congress has extended its sitting into this week and has gone further until 15 October. I think it is fair to speculate that, in terms of attaching the amendment to one piece of legislation and its having failed to pass through Congress, it may be that the second piece of legislation will also not be passed. We await the decision of the United States Congress. The second part of the honourable gentleman's question relates to how various measures will improve the domestic strength of the sugar industry. As honourable members know, the Commonwealth sugar assistance package is now in place, under which we shall be supplying up to $100m over three years for price support, mill adjustment and farm adjustment. As for the development and adjustment of sugar mills, the key body is now the Sugar Mill Adjustment Committee, on which the Commonwealth, the State and growers have representatives. The Committee has met twice and it has made recommendations to the two governments. I have indicated that Commonwealth support for either a four or a five-mill merger in the Mackay region is approved by the Commonwealth. These proposals will be to put shareholders of the mills involved over the next month or so for approval. The Sugar Mill Adjustment Committee is concentrating also on mill adjustment in the far north of Queensland. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The level of conversation is far too high. Mr KERIN —It is indeed, Madam Speaker. Although the honourable member for Denison is not the least interested in these matters, the people in Queensland are quite interested, as are those who are engaged in the sugar industry. The Committee is now concentrating on mill adjustment in the far north of Queensland. This is the area that was hit by Cyclone Winifred, and there are particular memories regarding the Babinda Mill. I place on record my serious concern for the mill. I trust that the Sugar Mill Adjustment Committee will consider the problem seriously. The honourable member for Leichhardt has made extensive representations on behalf of that mill in that area. The town depends on the mill and we shall be doing all that we can to help in this regard. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —Pursuant to section 37 of the Australian Industry Development Corporation Act 1970, I present the annual report of the Australian Industry Development Corporation for 1985-86, together with the text of the statement by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee) —I seek leave to make a statement. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented? Mr PETER FISHER —Yes, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr PETER FISHER —During the debate this morning on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3), the honourable member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe) said that I had inferred by interjection that farmers would be gaoled if they refused to pay the fringe benefits tax. The honourable member knows that that is a total misrepresentation. It was the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) on ABC radio this morning, as the transcript that I have reveals, who threatened gaol for farmers if they refused to meet this commitment. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will show where he has been personally misrepresented. Mr PETER FISHER —I believe that I have shown that, Madam Speaker. I believe that this is typical of the deception and confusion in which this Government is indulging. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member may not now debate the issue. He may sit down. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security) —For the information of honourable members, I present a discussion paper on reform to current child maintenance arrangements. I seek leave to make a statement. Leave granted. Mr HOWE —This paper is being released to assist consultations with major organisations which have an interest in the proposed reforms. The paper outlines the Government's proposed directions for reform which were announced in the Budget context and raises a number of issues on which it will be seeking community views. The issues on which views are particularly sought include: firstly, how best to determine the capacity to pay of non-custodial parents and the formula for determining the level of payments; secondly, whether there should be maximum or minimum payments; thirdly, whether the custodial parent's financial circumstances should be considered, and if so, how; fourthly, on what grounds should people be able to have the formula departed from; fifthly, how to treat custodial parents if they refuse to provide information about the non-custodial parent; sixthly, the relationship between maintenance and social security payments; seventhly, the relationship between maintenance and property; and finally, whether any circumstances justify any link between access and maintenance. The discussion paper not only will be useful in the consultation process but also should assist organisations and individuals wishing to make submissions to the Government on the proposed changes to child maintenance arrangements. Consultation will occur from now until the end of November, whereupon the Government will be in a position to finalise details of its new child support scheme. I believe that the discussion paper makes clear the position that the Government has taken on the overall question of maintenance and child support. I believe that the paper will be of great interest. We are certainly very anxious to involve discussion across a broad spectrum of views. We hope that we can achieve in this Parliament considerable agreement around the question of child support. Previous debates, especially in the other place, have shown that there is very broad support across parties for reform in this area. I commend the paper to the House. Mr BLUNT(Richmond) —by leave-I agree with the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) that there is broad bipartisan support for the need for reform in child support in Australia at present. I welcome the tabling of the discussion paper, as superficial as it may be. I do not intend to comment at length now about the contents of the paper because, as the Minister and the House know, we have had the paper for only about two hours during the suspension of the sitting for lunch and in Question Time. I note that it is not the first paper that has been tabled in this place dealing with maintenance collection in Australia. I regret that the Minister has made no reference to the 400-page report dealing with maintenance collection in Australia that was tabled in 1984. The paper that has been tabled today was prepared as a result of the appointment of a consultant. The appointment was made some 10 months ago. As a result of 10 months work, we have 41 pages of substantive report, plus appendixes. I regret that the Minister, in today's statement, made no attempt to explain the Government's philosophy in making a Press statement prior to the Budget, which created the impression in the Australian public's mind that action in this area was imminent and that many supporting parents in Australia could rely on the Government in the near future to do something about their difficulties in obtaining maintenance support from their former partners. I am sure that the Minister is just as aware as I am that many people anticipated prompt action and, in fact, deferred pursuing legal remedies of their own in anticipation that his Government and his Department, through the Australian Taxation Office, would be acting immediately to come to grips with the problem that exists. I am also concerned that there is a conflict between the Minister's statement released as part of the Budget, which shows that the Government's proposals will not affect those people who have effective maintenance collection arrangements at present. However, on my readings of the report tabled today, the Government anticipates that the scheme will be extended to all children in Australia. I hope that in the coming discussions the Minister will make clear to all Australians exactly what the Government's intentions are in this area. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented? Mr KERIN —Yes, I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister may proceed. Mr KERIN —Yesterday, the Livestock and Grain Producers Association of New South Wales issued a Press release advocating to its 22,000 members that they should not pay the fringe benefits tax. It said that the resolution of that organisation was consistent with the statement by the President of the National Farmers Federation that, one way or another, he and members of the NFF Executive will not pay tax on benefits received by another person. I commented on that because an observer at the meeting reported that members of the Council of the LGPA said that they would go to gaol rather than pay the fringe benefits tax. I put out a Press release and I was slightly misrepresented by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation which said that, in my Press release, I was warning farmers that they would go to gaol if they did not pay the FBT. The Press release said nothing about that whatsoever. It simply reflected on the fact that members of the LGPA were beating their chest about going to gaol rather than paying the fringe benefits tax while, at the same time, focusing on the NFF position of cashing out the fringe benefit by requiring employees to pay it. That is all that was in my Press release. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. That over 67,000 men, women and students enjoy the pursuit of their sport and recreation every year at the Anzac Rifle Range at Malabar and have done so since 1967. 2. The people of Sydney through their membership of 41 clubs headquartered at the Anzac Rifle Range together with a number of other community, school and commercial groups, the police and armed forces will lose this community facility if the Federal Government proceeds to sell the Range to private developers. 3. The Australian Bicentenary Fullbore Rifle Championships are to be conducted at the Anzac Rifle Range in April 1988 as part of the celebration of Australia's Bicentenary. Your petitioners therefore urge the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to retain the Anzac Rifle Range for the continued use and enjoyment of the people of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burr,Mr Robert Brown,Mr Cadman,Mr Coleman,Mr Connolly,Mr Cowan,Mr Tim Fischer,Mr Fitzgibbon,Mr Free,Mr Humphreys,Mr Hunt,Mr Kerin,Dr Klugman,Mr Leo McLeay,Mr Maher,Mr Martin,Mr Peter Morris,Mr Mountford,Mr Price,Mr Ruddock,Mr Simmons and Mr Webster. 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 Beale,Mr Braithwaite,Mr Burr,Mr Cadman,Mr Ian Cameron,Mr Drummond,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Tim Fischer,Mr Hawker,Ms McHugh,Mr MacKellar,Mr Milton,Mr Ian Robinson and Mr Ruddock. 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 radio- active substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Mr Cross,Mr Kent,Ms McHugh,Mr Milton,Mr Scott and Dr Theophanous. To the Speaker and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament Assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: By cutting ESL funding and eliminating funding for community languages and multicultural education you have attacked tens of thousands of Australian children. You have condemned these children with limited English to gross educational inequality and very dim prospects for their future. On behalf of these children we call on you to remove this new discrimination which your budget has guaranteed by immediately restoring ESL and Multicultural education funding. by Mr Baldwin,Mr Coleman and Mr Leo McLeay. 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 the Federal government cuts to Australia-wide English as Second Language programs and the axing of Multicultural Education Programs and we request the restoration of funding to these programs. by Dr Theophanous. 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 Kent,Mr Milton and Dr Theophanous. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This Humble Petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that your pensioners 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 pensioners 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 Beale and Mr John Brown. 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 and 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 showeth that whereas: They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a Referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale and Mr McArthur. 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 and Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned plead that the Parliament implement pro-family policies. In particular we appeal for: 1. the retention of the present graduated assessment system for payment of the Family Allowance; 2. indexation of the Family Allowance in order to keep pace with inflation; 3. an increase of 3.7 per cent in the Family Allowance benefit to return it to 11.5 per cent of the Average Award Wage (making it similar in value to the 11.5 per cent of the Basic Wage when Child Endowment was first introduced by the Chifley Government in 1941); 4. retention of the Dependent Spouse Rebate and the amount of the Dependent Spouse Rebate adjusted so that it is equal in value to the tax-free threshold allowed when calculating taxable income. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia, hereby petition the Prime Minister as Leader of the Australian Labor Party in Government in Australia and humbly showeth that: The voting public of Australia did in March 1983 and again in December 1984 vote as a majority for the election of a Labor Government who did claim to stand for social justice, equity and redistribution. That the said voters sincerely believed that a contract was entered into in voting for a Labor Government with democratic socialist principles. That there is an erosion of support for the pensioners, the unemployed, the aged, the sick and the working class of Australia, while the lot of the privileged class, the banks, the oil companies, and the money-changers continues to improve. Your petitioners call on the Australian Labor Government to implement those policies and follow those principles of social justice, equity and redistribution which the majority of Australians voted for in 1983 and in 1984, and to adopt an immediate programme that will transfer the current economic burden to those better able to carry it. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kent and Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned at the impact of the new Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds: 1. Its severe and damaging effect on business confidence, investment and incentive, especially in the rural, mining and small business sectors. 2. Its capacity to seriously worsen unemployment through the additional costs its imposes. 3. Its extremely negative impact on the competitiveness of export industries at a time when the nation desperately needs to improve its trading performance. 4. In that it may compel many honest and decent citizens to defy the Tax in order to preserve their livelihoods, their businesses and the jobs of their employees, thus causing hardship, the breakdown of respect for the law and discord within the community. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax legislation forthwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the Fringe Benefits Tax is an iniquitous and unjust impost which will further damage the Australian economy and further increase costs to employers. The Tax will: (1) further increase the level of unemployment; (2) increase the administrative costs and overheads for business and Government; (3) particularly disadvantage small businesses and farmers; and (4) act as a disincentive to those who are the most productive and skilled; and we the undersigned call upon the Government to immediately repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned, are seriously concerned about the impact of the Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds: 1. It is unjust for any person to be liable for tax on benefits received by another person. 2. Compliance with FBT will increase administrative costs for all employers including Local, State and Federal government departments. 3. FBT is an inefficient tax, which will require the Tax Office to employ an army of bureaucrats. 4. FBT is inequitable because liability arises regardless of capacity to pay. 5. The FBT laws are extremely complex. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax legislation forthwith. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned at the impact of the new Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds: 1. its severe and damaging effect on business confidence, investment and incentive, especially in the rural, mining and small business sectors 2. its capacity to seriously worsen unemployment through the additional costs it imposes 3. its extremely negative impact on the competitiveness of export industries at a time when the nation desperately needs to improve its trading performance 4. in that it may compel many honest and decent citizens to defy the Tax in order to preserve their livelihoods, their businesses and the jobs of their employees, thus causing hardship, the breakdown of respect for the law and discord within the community. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax legislation forthwith. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hicks. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned stud breeders of Australia showeth: 1. Stud breeders are deeply concerned over the Federal Government's decision to create a new tax which will be most harmful to the industry. 2. If passed, the proposed tax law would cause chaos in an industry that caters for the domestic and export markets. 3. Could cause the loss of pedigreed animals in all spheres of the industry for years to come. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will: (a) Reconsider the stud stock tax and so remove an added burden on stud breeders. (b) Formulate policies that will de-regulate the industry and achieve an environment which caters for the depressed economy resulting from the de-valued dollar. by Mr Burr. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Represenatives. 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. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectively request that unemployment benefits be given to all unemployed people. Regardless of their participation in and acceptance or non-acceptance of government initiatives aimed at alleviating unemployment; that participation in all labour market programmes and community services should be voluntary and the receipt of unemployment benefits should not be predicated on participation in any labour market programs. We do not accept that voluntary work is a solution to unemployment and humbly pray that all government labour market programmes offer award wages and proper training. We also humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should take every step as necessary to ensure that no unemployed person will have to work for social security benefits. by Mr Coleman. To the Honourable the Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: That the humble petitioners are gravely concerned about recent changes in the Extradition (Foreign States) Act of 1966 which deny basic rights which have been a cornerstone of the English and Australian law for over seven hundred years. We are speaking of the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and the right of an individual to defend himself against his accusers. This concern has come to light during recent extradition proceedings against Messrs Kempel 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 1966, and amend the current Act so that the rights of the accused are once again judicially protected in Australia. In addition, we urge the Government to refrain from entering into any further extradition treaties or proceedings under the current Act until the process of re-examination and amendment of the Act has occurred. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. To the 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 remunerations 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 Maranoa electorate respectfully showeth that: The current Government's Bill of Rights seeks to make changes in the constitutional balance in Australia by intruding into the affairs of individuals and of State and local Governments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal the Bill of Rights legislation and not restrict the individual freedoms of Australians and its present justice system, nor in any underhand way centralise power in our three tier system of government. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Bill of Rights is a dangerous piece of legislation which gives us no new legally enforceable rights That the Bill of Rights leaves out vital rights such as the right not to belong to a trade union, the right to own private property, the right to a private education That the Bill of Rights gives dangerous new powers to a Federal Government Commission to investigate in private, without legal representation and with criminal penalties for refusing to co-operate That the Bill of Rights deals with our rights; therefore we, the people, should say whether we want it by a referendum. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will oppose the Bill of Rights, support Liberal amendments to improve it in case it is passed, and pledge to repeal it should it become law. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows that the Hawke Government should: 1. Pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices 2. Not increase or extend fuel taxes; and 3. Maintain its tax cut commitments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment to the Import Parity Pricing policy. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the many anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions brought to its notice, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that your petitioners wish that all medicines prescribed by a registered Medical Practitioner be made available free of charge by the Government to all pensioners for the following reasons: 1. The enormous cost of some drugs, including pain relieving ones, not at present on the ``free list''. 2. That certain drugs essential for permanently disabled, such as epileptics are at present being charged for and therefore present a great financial burden to the pensioner. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will consider our wishes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows- That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia of Albanian background respectfully showeth: We most strongly oppose the use of the `special broadcasting service' and the taxpayers funds for nationalist political purposes. We are deeply concerned that the existing Albanian program on Radio 3EA Melbourne is not meeting the needs of the community. It is being used against its' interests, as well as the interests of the broader Australian society. We respectfully believe that such use of public facilities undermines Australian principles of multi-culturalism and has a damaging effect on community relations. Your petitioners therefore, strongly urge the Government to take immediate action to ensure that the present announcers of the Albanian program are removed and replaced with community representatives. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable, the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That following the Chernobyl nuclear disaster of 26th April 1986, the Soviet Union has not yet adequately explained to its citizens of those of the Soviet-occupied Baltic States, Ukraine and other areas affected by the radiation fall-out the potential short-term and long-term health hazards and the available modes of prevention or reduction of radiation poisoning. Neither have the appropriate medicines for substitution therapies to minimise bodily accumulation of radioactive elements been adequately provided. 2. That the Soviet Union operates many nuclear power stations without elementary structural safeguards against radioactive spillage regarded as mandatory in the West. Of particular concern is the safety of the largest Soviet nuclear power station at Ignalina in Soviet occupied Lithuania, of similar design to Chernobyl, which already has a record of operational problems. Radioactive spillage at Ignalina would quickly contaminate the whole of Latvia, Lithuania as well as vast areas of Europe. We request that the Australian Government will: 1. Through the World Health Organisation, provide medical aid and broadcast medical information to the victims of radiation exposure following the Chernobyl disaster. 2. Through the United Nations Organisation request the Soviet Union, (a) to close down all nuclear power stations similar to Chernobyl till protective structures are built. (b) permit international inspection of such safety structures. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Langmore. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government support the introduction of additional television channels through the Multi Channel Service proposal submitted by North Queensland Television. We oppose the aggregation option favoured by the Government as this will lead to a loss of local programming, community service involvement and local employment at NQTV. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government support the Multi Channel Service proposal submitted by North Queensland Television. by Mr Lindsay. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth, do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government take the action necessary to create an Australian Republic on or before 1st January 1988. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Ms McHugh. 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 program in schools. We request that the Australian government restore funding to the 1985 level in the 1986-87 budget. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we the undersigned citizens of Australia respectively showeth that: The high interest rates on home loans of 13.5% and above has and is placing the recipients in a financially disastrous position, as thousands have lost their homes and thousands more will do so if these appalling conditions continue for the young and established home purchasers. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your House urge all politicians that no Government or Opposition in a power position should continue to tolerate this cruel, vicious procedure that shatters the very structure of family life, from the farmers to the city dwellers. We need a five year period to reduce this absurdity by tackling it at its source. Firstly, interest repayments on home loans to be reduced by 2% annually for the next five years or until it is down to 8% or less. This would, or should diminish union demands, and cause no hazard for investors, who could reinvest in Government projects, or other worthwhile ventures and also ease the burden on Social Securities. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. Initiated by John Knight, 26th June 1986. by Mr Scott. This Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the humble petitioners respectfully believe that the representatives in Australia of the African National Congress of South Africa (ANC) and of the South West African People's Organisation of Namibia (SWAPO) should not have to suffer unending financial problems related to the cost of rent, food and clothing, and the maintenance of two small offices run on the most austere basis. Your Petitioners therefore pray and urge Australian Government provision of: 1. Official recognition of the ANC and SWAPO as the legitimate representatives of the people of South Africa and Namibia; 2. Financial support to the offices and representatives of the ANC and SWAPO to promote the anti-Apartheid cause in Australia; 3. Additional financial support for the official representatives of the ANC and SWAPO to assist the humanitarian needs of Namibian and South African refugees who are victims of Apartheid; 4. Scholarships for South African and Namibian refugees. These to be provided through the ANC and SWAPO education departments. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Scott. To the Parliament of Australia. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The abhorrent, racist system of Apartheid prevents non-white children and youth in South Africa and Namibia from equal participation in education (official statistics given in the South African Parliament for 1980-81 showed the annual expenditure on education to be 1,000 rand per capita for whites as against less than 200 rand per capita for blacks); Education inside South Africa and Namibia is so imbued with the ideology of apartheid that non-white students have rebelled against the `Bantu' Education system, leading to many students being imprisoned, beaten and harassed by police; Many children and youth have fled apartheid South Africa and Namibia to refugee camps run by the African National Congress of South Africa (ANC) and the South West African People's Organisation (SWAPO) of Namibia. In these refugee camps international aid provides primary and secondary education, but tertiary education in such circumstances is impractical; The Australian Parliament has a bipartisan policy of opposition to Apartheid; The provision of scholarships for tertiary study in Australia for students from these refugee camps is one of the most positive steps Australia can take towards a non-racist future for South Africa; Community contributions to the Jim Gale Memorial African Scholarship Fund have reached over $13,000 in eight months, demonstrating the strong concern among Australians about this issue. Your petitioners therefore pray and urge the Parliament of Australia to: Provide one hundred scholarships annually for South African students to be selected from ANC refugee camps, to enable them to undertake tertiary studies in Australia. Provide one hundred scholarships annually for Namibian students to be selected from SWAPO refugee camps, to enable them to undertake tertiary studies in Australia. Join with the Jim Gale Memorial African Scholarship Fund to provide at lease one scholarship each year in memory of Jim Gale. Waive any visa charges which might otherwise attach to these students as overseas students. Your humble petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Scott. To the Speaker and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That whereas the Federal Government has decided that the Swan Island Lighthouse is to become fully automatic, and whereas previously many people benefited from weather reports issued by the manned station on Swan Island, the following residents of Australia urge the Federal Government to ensure a manned presence on the Island beyond 1986. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Smith. 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,Mr Free and Mr Price. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: Labor's Capital Gains Tax is standing in the way of economic development on the Far North Coast, a region with great potential for further growth and renowned for the enterprise and initiative of its local community. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal its anti-business anti-farming and anti-individual Capital Gains Tax. 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 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 assembled in Parliament. The Petition of certain residents of the State of the Northern Territory of Australia draws to the attention of the House that the Fringe Benefits Tax Legislation recently passed by Parliament is unfair and will prejudice the current working conditions of all Territorians. 1. It will increase both personal and company taxation. 2. It will undermine employment levels through reducing profitability and international competitiveness of industry. 3. It will result in price increases. 4. It will force employers to withdraw voluntary incentives to employees paid over and above existing payments. 5. It endangers stable industrial relations because of the potential for forced withdrawal of Fringe Benefits. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House take such action as is necessary to rescind the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986, the Fringe Benefits Tax Act 1986, the Fringe Benefits Tax (Application to the Commonwealth) Act 1986 and the Fringe Benefits Tax (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1986. by Mr Everingham. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled: We, the undersigned petitioners of the electorate of Farrer, do respectfully show our opposition to the introduction of a Fringe Benefits Tax and Capital Gains Tax, and related legislation. Your petitioners do humbly call for the repeal of both pieces of legislation. Such taxes are an additional burden upon small business, and lead to increased bureaucracy. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, do ever pray. by Mr Tim Fischer. To the honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of certain citizens of Victoria respectfully showeth: That all legitimate business expenses incurred in earning or producing assessable income should be allowable deductions. That the proposed Capital Gains Tax is an unwarranted burden on the rural sector, which will severely affect its long-term viability. That the delay by the Government in introducing the legislation into Parliament is causing confusion and hindering farmers in the organisation of their affairs. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government introduces the Capital Gains Tax legislation without delay and that the Australian Democrats join with the Opposition to defeat the proposed legislation. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the Toowoomba Education Centre, electors of the Division of Darling Downs shows that Federal Recurrent Funds to the Centre have been reduced and your petitioners therefore pray that the funding be retained at its present level. by Mr McVeigh. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Cowper Electorate, respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor government's productivity- superannuation accord with the ACTU and its support of the superannuation claims of the trade union movement will create an imbalance in industrial power and distort the future development of the Australian economy. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject the superannuation claim of the trade union movement, and allow superannuation to develop without trade union domination. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. Petitions received. Bill returned from the Senate without requests. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The complete failure of the Hawke Government to provide genuine personal income tax cuts for the ordinary Australian taxpayer. 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 CARLTON(Mackellar)(3.04) —Yesterday in this House the Opposition took up with the Government in a very substantial way the question of the lousy and miserable fringe benefits tax. One of the arguments that were put forward by the Government in support of that miserable and hopelessly inefficient and outrageous tax was that it was necessary to go into that kind of disaster in order to provide personal income tax cuts for ordinary people. Indeed, this has been the justification for the introduction of other taxes, such as the capital gains tax and the foreign tax credits scheme, the non-deductibility of entertainment expenses and a whole stack of other impositions right down to a miserable $200 charge for somebody wishing to disagree with the Commissioner of Taxation. We are told that all these things have been put forward in the interests of giving personal tax cuts to ordinary people. If the Government thinks that on 1 December an expectant population will be cheering in the streets because of these so-called taxation cuts, it has another think coming because these supposed taxation cuts proposed for December are an absolute fraud. Yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) raised in the House the new concept of unintended consequences. The Prime Minister said: `I didn't know what was going on until a few days ago'. The Acting Treasurer (Mr Hurford), the fellow who signs all the fringe benefits tax letters for the Treasurer (Mr Keating), had not told him that the honourable member for Went- worth (Mr Coleman) had written months ago asking how a quadriplegic would be treated by way of fringe benefits taxes. He said he had only heard of this problem two of three days before. All I can say is that the administration of the Treasurer's office and of the office of the Minister Assisting the Treasurer is even more incompetent than I thought it was if the Prime Minister was not told of a matter of such extraordinary concern to ordinary people. Today we are talking about a different set of unintended consequences-we are talking about the unintended consequences of the Prime Minister caving in at the National Taxation Summit, of going across Lake Burley Griffin to the Canberra International Motor Inn without the knowledge of his Treasurer, ratting on the Treasurer and ratting on the Government's principal tax reform proposals. The unintended consequence of the Prime Minister's collapse on that particular situation is that the so-called tax cuts for ordinary taxpayers in the tax package of last September are not worth a crumpet. When the Prime Minister left the Taxation Summit, abandoned his Treasurer and went over to the Canberra International Motor Inn to receive his instructions from the Australian Council of Trade Unions, did he then realise that he was putting paid to any hope for genuine personal income tax relief for low and middle income earners in Australia? He would claim that these are merely unintended consequences. All I can say is that the Prime Minister has let down the ordinary people of Australia in a most spectacular fashion. The Government keeps saying that the Opposition has not made its position on taxation sufficiently clear some 18 months before an election. Let me read what the Prime Minister made clear to the Australian people in his 1984 policy speech. He said: . . . unlike any previous tax cuts for more than a decade, their real value to the taxpayers of Australia will not be filched by the theft of double-digit inflation. The tax cuts are the first element in our undertaking to achieve tax reform, and to provide tax relief for the taxpayers- honourable members should listen to this- but particularly the middle and low income earners of Australia-the ordinary hard-working Australians who pay as they earn. People listening to the Prime Minister's 1984 policy speech who might have considered themselves to be in that particular category of taxpayer would have applauded that statement and that sentiment. They were asked by the Prime Minister to trust him to introduce what he said he was going to introduce. In the same speech, in relation to tax, he also said: I ask for your renewed mandate for Medicare. And I now give this undertaking-that for the term of our next government, the Medicare levy will not be increased. Last night in this House the Medicare levy was increased, yet the Prime Minister said in his 1984 policy speech that it would not be increased. In addition, he gave us the famous nine principles of taxation in his 1984 policy speech. I will quote a couple of them. He said: First, there must be no increase in the overall tax burden, as measured by the share of Commonwealth Government revenue in gross domestic product. The Prime Minister said that there would be no increase in that share which then stood at 25 per cent; it now stands at 25.5 per cent. An extra $1,400m has been filched from Australian taxpayers, quite against what the Prime Minister promised. He also said: Second, any reform must continue the process already begun by this Government, and provide further major cuts in personal income tax. I have enough evidence there to hang anybody, given what this Government has done. There is clear evidence from the 1984 policy speech, which was delivered not so long ago, that the Prime Minister gave a solemn undertaking to the ordinary taxpayers of Australia to reduce their personal income tax. When he went over to the Canberra International Motor Inn and sold his soul to the ACTU, the Government was unable to shift some of the burden of personal tax across to indirect tax. It failed on that very day to give itself the capacity to produce genuine personal income tax cuts after inflation. The Prime Minister obviously recognised this difficulty in 1984, because he made specific reference in his policy speech to inflation ripping away the value of personal income tax cuts. Of course, the Government was also hopeful-it talked about doing this-of bringing inflation right down to 5 per cent. What has happened since? Inflation is currently 8.4 per cent and rising. We are almost on the doorstep of double digit inflation and everybody knows that inflation eats away at the tax brackets. Everybody knows that people get salary increases because of inflation, they go up into higher tax brackets and they lose more and more dollars. Although there is the appearance of a tax cut, it is only an appearance; the reality is that they get less. Let us look at the actual framework of so-called reform for personal tax that the Government talks about. The Government says that over two years the rates will come down as follows. The 25c rate will come down to 24c. That is not very much. The 30c rate will come down to 29c. That is not very much. In other words, we should notice that in the lower income range not all that much is being offered. But in the area in which the Government claims to make a big offer, the 46c rate-which is increasingly the rate at which average weekly earners now pay-is to come down to 40c. It looks good, but by the time that that measure is enacted in mid-1987-assuming that the mini-Budget of next year does not take it away too, or defer it-no fewer than two million taxpayers will have moved out of the 29c bracket and into the 40c bracket. So, on the face of it, the Government is saying: `We will reduce the marginal rate for the average weekly earnings from 46c in the dollar to 40c in the dollar'. That is rubbish because in fact two million taxpayers will have moved out of the 29c bracket and into the 40c bracket by the time that these measures are enacted next year. Fifty per cent of all taxpayers will be paying a top marginal rate of 40c in the dollar or more and an extra 4 per cent of taxpayers will join that group each year because of the effects of inflation. Mr Braithwaite —And they call that relief. Mr CARLTON —It is hardly relief in anybody's book. Let us look at the effects on individuals and families. I refer first of all to the question that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) asked the Prime Minister in this House on 17 September. He asked him a very direct question about the position of the person on average weekly earnings and how such a person would fare under these tax changes. The Prime Minister, typically, as always when he is asked a direct question, refused to answer. To this very day he has not answered. The Treasurer put out some thoroughly misleading stuff to selected journalists-not the whole gallery-based on a reinterpretation of average weekly earnings, which was different from that in the Government's own draft White Paper. The Treasurer tried to mislead the gallery. It did not work; the members of the Press gallery saw through it. The real question, which is still before the Prime Minister, still unanswered, and which we will ask the Acting Treasurer, who is at the table, to answer this afternoon, is this: Is it true that the marginal tax rate for a single person on average weekly earnings will move from its March 1983 level of 30c in the dollar to 40c in the dollar after the so-called reforms? What about the average rate of tax paid; that is, across all the brackets? Is it true that a single person on average weekly earnings in March 1983, when the Government came to office, paid 22.9c in the dollar average tax and, after the so-called reforms, will pay 24.5c in the dollar? I ask the Acting Treasurer whether that is true. Can he deny that the Keating tax cuts increase both the average and the marginal rates of tax for people on average weekly earnings? Of course he cannot deny that, because they do. What about the situation of a family with two dependants? Let us take into account the Medicare levy, because that is tax; it is nothing else. We pay extra tax and we get lousy health services. That is all that the Medicare levy is. Tak- ing account of the family allowance and taking into account the effects of inflation-which is still rising under this Government-we find that the average family will be $23.50 a week worse off after the lousy tax cuts from 1 December this year. Mr Hunt —That is without the petrol tax? Mr CARLTON —My friend the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), reminds me of the point I was going to make next in my argument. It is a very telling point indeed; that is, the matter of petrol tax. This average family with two dependants on average weekly earnings pays an additional 14c a litre excise tax at the pump under the Hawke Government. Mr Braithwaite —But what did the Prime Minister say beforehand? Mr CARLTON —He promised, of course, to reduce it. That is an extra $6.30 a week in tax on petrol under this Government for a family already losing $23.50 a week under the so-called tax changes and also because of the effects of inflation. This Government really has to come clean. After three or four years it becomes impossible to cover up. The tracks become very clear in the sand. The tracks were made through this House when it was used not as a chamber of Parliament but as the venue for a so-called National Taxation Summit. The Prime Minister, having committed himself to it during the heat of an election campaign, when all his promises on tax were generalisations, nonetheless made clear the principle that there would be reductions in real personal tax for low and middle income families after the effects of inflation and that there would be no increase in the Medicare levy. Both of those solemn undertakings were destroyed when he moved out of this chamber and talked to the ACTU in a hotel on the other side of Lake Burley Griffin and came back here and told the Treasurer that the game was up. That game-the Government's objective of shifting the burden away from personal tax more in the direction of indirect tax-was up and the solemn undertakings and promises once again had been broken. Just as he solemnly broke his promise on the capital gains tax, so also has he broken his promises to people on personal income tax. The first of December will be a day of infamy for this Government. Nobody will be congratulating it; there will be no cheering in the streets. On 1 December people will know that they have been robbed, and shortly after that they will chuck the robbers out on their ears. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Acting Treasurer)(3.18) —The Hawke Labor Government is again delivering the goods, in this case by way of real tax cuts, and all we get from this Opposition is nitpicking. It is truly amazing that the Opposition, with its shocking record on personal taxation-I will be going into that record-can contrive this matter of public importance and bring it into the Parliament today. These people of the Liberal and National Party coalition really have gall in raising the subject of taxation. The Australian people have not forgotten, for instance, that infamous fistful of dollars promised during the 1977 election campaign by the then Government. Of course, after the election not only did taxpayers miss out on the fistful of dollars; they were slugged with an extra 1.5 per cent tax surcharge by the new coalition Treasurer who took over at that particular election. Today he happens to be the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). Was the present Opposition Leader at all embarrassed by that deception? He was not the slightest bit embarrassed. When he was confronted with this he said: `No, I am not embarrassed at all'. When the current Treasurer, the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating), pointed out in this Parliament that the Leader of the Opposition had reneged on the coalition's promise to make tax cuts, what was his answer? The Leader of the Opposition's reply was: `I did not make the promise; I was not the Treasurer or the Prime Minister at the time'. In other words, the Leader of the Opposition was stating that, because he was not Treasurer prior to the 1977 election, none of the promises made by Prime Minister Fraser and his cohorts at that election time were binding upon him after the election. That was the excuse he made. It is a convenient line for the Leader of the Opposition to adopt. As everybody knows, the Liberal Party of Australia has another shadow Treasurer waiting in the wings to supplant the current encumbent, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), in the unlikely event that the Opposition parties are returned to office in the foreseeable future. The prospective member for Wentworth, Professor Hewson, has publicly stated that he is after the job of the honourable member for Mackellar. Judging by the performance today of the honourable member of Mackellar, Professor Hewson will not have much trouble getting it. The circumstances will then once again suit the Opposition Leader because the pre-election shadow Treasurer would be different from the post-election Treasurer so all of the promises could be broken. All of the rhetoric that we have heard today would count for nought. All of the rhetoric that we have heard ad nauseam over recent months would be past the post. Mr Spender —You have just conceded the election; thank you very much. Mr HURFORD —I said: `In the unlikely event that the Opposition parties were returned to power'. If the honourable member had been listening to what I said earlier, he would have heard that I was referring to the unlikely event of anything like that happening in the foreseeable future. Members of the Opposition may have hoped that their sleight of hand in 1977 would be lost in their tax cuts of 1982. But, once again, I am looking at their record as a government in 1982. Again, in 1982 their tax cuts were based on deception. Two points need to be made about this and I want to put them on the record. Firstly, the 1982 tax cuts were an election bribe made without any thought of how they would be paid for or of the effect that they would have on the economy of this country. All Australians remember how the result of those tax cuts was a massive deficit in prospect of $9.6 billion. In other words, the tax cuts were taken back from the people in the form of higher interest rates and an increased debt burden for all Australians. That was no more than economic vandalism. Those so-called tax cuts in 1982 represented no value in the pockets of people. That vandalism ended up in increased interest rates and an economy in tatters. I will make a second point about the 1982 tax cuts. The 1982 tax cuts were preceded by a long period of tax rises. Throughout their years in government, Opposition members were the most active seekers of new and higher taxes in this country's history. It is absolutely incredible to hear them now talk about others as high tax people. We will look at the list of the new taxes created by the Opposition when it was in government. Firstly, there was the bank account debits tax which is alive in our memory because we had a Bill dealing with it today. Mr Carlton —You just doubled it. Mr HURFORD —I do not resile from the fact that we have just doubled the bank account debits tax in the Australian Capital Territory to bring it in line with the rates in the States. But who brought in the tax? Is anybody seeking to make the point that the level today in real terms is any different from the one that was brought in? Secondly, there was the 2 per cent revenue duty. Thirdly, there was the 2 1/2 per cent Medibank levy. I am going through the list of new taxes created by those opposite when in government and who now have the gall to raise in the Parliament today the subject of taxes. Fourthly, there was the 1978-79 income tax surcharge. Fifthly, there were sales taxes on pet foods, soft drink bottles, television tubes, safety belts, oils and greases and insecticides. Those were all tax burdens placed on the people of this country by the Liberal and National parties. In addition, there were sales taxes on curtains, manchester and construction equipment. All of these taxes were introduced by those opposite who say that they do not approve of a move towards indirect taxes. That was said in the speech that we have just heard. In addition, the previous Government, of which the honourable member for Mackellar was a Minister, introduced sales taxes on hand tools and even on certain literature. Sixthly, under the previous Government there was a 33 1/3 per cent increase in sales tax rates across the board. Seventhly, there were increases in excise on tobacco, petrol and beer. Eighthly, there was the massive $3 billion tax take from the crude oil levy. We have just heard the honourable member for Mackellar seek to be a person of the theatre and respond to an interjection from the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Hunt) about oil taxes. Opposition members should remember the massive $3 billion tax take from the crude oil levy which was the heritage of the Liberal and National parties. In other words, the Opposition when in government spent seven years taxing everything that moved yet Opposition members have the gall to raise in this Parliament the issue of taxes. Opposition spokespersons wander around the country murmuring that there might be something desirable in the American taxation reform system. Once again, the Opposition is engaging in deception and in peddling half-truths. The bottom line is that, under the American tax reform proposals, the overall incidence of taxation in the United States is very similar to that in this country at about 30 per cent of gross domestic product. It is no good Opposition members muttering about low marginal tax rates in the United States when the facts are that, firstly, the top marginal rate is actually 33 per cent, not 28 per cent, because of the phasing out of the tax threshold and personal exemption. Secondly, the rate does not include compulsory social security levies which, for the average United States earner, are 6.7 per cent of income. Thirdly, the rate does not include State and local government income taxes which range from zero to 16 per cent in the United States. Fourthly, and this is worth noting because Opposition members run around the country peddling the United States tax reform as something to be desired, taking all of those things into account, individuals on average United States earnings will face an effective marginal tax rate of between 39.7 and 55.7 per cent depending on their place of residence. It is time that people understood the sort of proposition that the Opposition is putting before them. In comparison, even the highest income earner in Australia will face a marginal tax rate of 49 per cent when our final tax reforms go through on 1 July next year. What is more, the American tax reform will be financed by a 25 per cent increase in business taxes. Is this a proposal that the coalition would seek to foist upon Australia? Is this a proposal that it wants us to endorse? The intellectual barrenness of Opposition members knows no bounds. On 29 April at the Australian finance conference held in Canberra, the Leader of the Opposition recalled speaking at a similar function in 1979 when he was the Treasurer. He recalled having said in 1979, with four years left of his inept reign as there then was, that there was a need to deregulate Australia's financial system. But what did he do about that in those four years? Nothing was done until the Hawke Labor Government was elected four years later. He also said at that conference that he recalled saying that there was a need to free up Australia's labour markets and wage fixation system. But nothing happened in the four years after 1979 and nothing that the Opposition advocates is likely to happen while this Government retains a responsible attitude to this issue. The absolute height of his hypocrisy was when he recalled having stressed the need for fundamental-I repeat that word fundamental-taxation reform. What happened? Nothing happened until our Hawke Labor Government was elected four years later in 1983. We have done and are doing something about fundamental tax reform. We do not indulge in only rhetoric, as does the Leader of the Opposition. It is the height of hypocrisy for Opposition members to talk about income tax in any form. Their record on the fringe benefits tax is enough. In 1980 the Leader of the Opposition talked about the fairness of taxing fringe benefits but in 1986 he says that he will throw out the fringe benefits tax lock stock and barrel. The Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair), the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the shadow Treasurer and the Opposition spokesperson on small business, old Ironbar, all have different views on how to implement a fringe benefits tax. One has only to contrast, for example, two recent statements. On 1 August 1985 the Leader of the Opposition said: If you are able to cut the top marginal rate of personal income tax (let me repeat, if you are able to cut the top marginal rate of income tax) then it is fair in that context and that context alone, to do something about fringe benefits. Then on 29 September 1986 he said: The fringe benefits tax will be thrown out lock, stock and barrel. That has always been our policy. It remains our policy. There's no qualification, there's no equivocation. How can we believe a man who says something that is so diametrically opposite to what he said earlier? How is that for hypocrisy, just taking those two quotations? The Leader of the Opposition claims that he would not tolerate any tax avoidance either-just as when he was Treasurer he tolerated so much tax avoidance. Here is the Leader of the Opposition, the failed Treasurer, saying, `If you are able to cut the top marginal rate of personal income tax'-but in the Government's case there is no `if' about it. We are doing the cutting, and I hope I have time to give three examples. The Government makes no apology for its record on personal income tax. We have made a series of significant tax cuts to restore incentive and fairness to the taxation system. The first of those three examples was in November 1984 when the tax scales were cut to make the tax system fairer and more progressive. The second is the one that is in anticipation for 1 December 1986, the first stage of the tax reform tax cuts, costing $1.5 billion in this financial year. The third will be the tax cut on 1 July 1987, the second stage of our tax reform. That is already in legislation in this Parliament, with the top rate falling to 49c in the dollar. I rest on those three examples of our achievements. There is much more I would like to say about average tax rates and about how the shadow Treasurer has been misleading the House. Those three examples of real tax cuts make this Government proud; they are part of our record. However, Opposition members have nothing to offer but rhetoric, and there is no question that they have not delivered what they promised in the past. Mr REITH(Flinders)(3.35) —What an amazing speech we have just heard from the Acting Treasurer (Mr Hurford). One might ask what speech-writing relic, what voice from the past prepared it and put it before the Minister to be brought into this House today. He barely ventured past 1982 in his talk about examples. We heard something about the bank account debits tax. The Government is not on firm ground on that score since that tax has just been doubled. The Minister wanted to say something about the fringe benefits tax. I do not know how he could say anything about that tax after the debacle of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in the last couple of days during Question Time. The Minister then came up with the amazing proposition that Labor is delivering the tax cuts. What a joke. I know that tax sometimes can be a complicated issue, and with this crowd we can be sure it is complicated with a capital `C'. But let me put the matter simply. Under Labor there are no three things more certain than death, taxes and more taxes. It is no good the Minister claiming in this House that somehow people will be better off as a result of these so-called tax cuts, if they ever come at all. The figures could not be clearer. The fact is that Labor believes in more taxation. Not long ago, in July, in Hobart, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) put out a statement to his colleagues for their consideration prior to the Australian Labor Party's National Conference. His attitude to tax was to boast about the measures that they had introduced to rip into the taxpayer. I quote: The specific measures taken to repair the tax base- repair; what a joke that is- with particular relevance to companies and other business taxpayers have included the following: The approximate full year revenue yield is provided . . . He then lists no fewer than 25 measures and concludes by saying: In summary, the foregoing tax measures have a total revenue effect in a full year in the order of $3 billion. Some repair job that was! It is not just the Treasurer who is keen on hiking up the tax take. Let us not forget that not so long ago the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), when talking to colleagues, spoke of a 50 per cent increase in tax-as if we are not paying enough tax already. He was the one who prior to the National Taxation Summit put forward a proposal to introduce a capital gains tax. We have heard a lot of talk about how much capital gains tax will bring and no doubt we shall hear a lot more, but the Minister's proposal was for a tax to bring in $1.5 billion. Ministers have had the gall in the last week or so, because a few Labor members had had a few free trips to Sweden, to say that we should be following the Swedish model. The Swedish Government is the biggest spending and biggest taxing government in the Western world. Tax can be complicated, and we have seen over 300 pages of tax Bills, let alone the explanatory memoranda, mauve booklets and everything else; but the crunch is that the Government needs tax revenue to support its spending. The simple proposition is that if one increases spending, one has to increase tax. Let us look at spending. This Labor Government is unquestionably the biggest spending government Australia has ever had. Let me take some bare figures. In 1982-83 Commonwealth outlays were $48.7 billion; in 1986-87 the Budget estimate, if one believes it-and many economists and commentators have been concerned about the rubberiness of the figures-is $74.7 billion. That is a massive increase of around $30 billion-odd-50 per cent in four years. It is our money, it is your money, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the Government is spending. You are paying for it, and when it comes to getting value for taxes, you have been had. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — Order! The honourable member should allude to the whole House, not just to the Chair. Mr REITH —I am happy to allude to other members, because there is no doubt that they have got their hands in the pockets of every member in this House and of people in the gallery. The smokescreen or justification for the extra tax is called tax reform, and the Government says that it will make the system fairer. It is supposed to bring equity into the system and to make for a more efficient system. Let us go back to 1984. For all the talk in the past few days about policies the Opposition might have, Labor went into the 1984 election and did not have a tax policy to bless itself with. Labor members said only three things. One was keep up the cry that there would be no capital gains tax. We know that that has been done to death, but one can be sure that the Labor Party has not heard the end of that. The second was that Labor intended to have a talkfest, the summit. Thirdly, Labor basically asked the Australian public for a blank cheque. The Government has been filling in that cheque ever since. It has filled it in by introducing a whole new range of taxes that are supposed to make the system simpler. What makes it more galling for the man in the street is that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, who are giving us these new taxes, have not a clue how they work. When the Treasurer claims travelling allowance for living in Sydney when everyone knows he lives in Canberra, one gets the feeling that their attitude is, `I'm all right, Jack, and to hell with everybody else'. It is no wonder that Paul Hogan was quoted in the Australian on 11 July 1986 as saying when referring to the Prime Minister-and I ask the Chair to pardon the French: He is surrounded by one or two good men, and a lot of dickheads. Trouble is he has lost the common touch. He has lost the common touch if ever he had it, and he certainly has not bothered to understand how his new taxes will affect ordinary Australian taxpayers. The impression that most people have had in the last couple of days in Question Time in regard to the fringe benefits tax is that the Prime Minister has not a clue and, frankly, has not a care how the tax will affect ordinary taxpayers. He is full of talk about the tax cuts, but it is all a mirage. The so-called tax cuts are not worth a cracker. It is the old story that if one tells a lie that is big enough and if one tells it often enough one will probably get away with it and some people will believe it. I have taken out the figures today. The simple fact is that after the tax cuts, if we get them all by July next year, we will not be paying less tax; we will be paying more tax. I have had the figures taken out independently. For a married man on average weekly earnings, with a wife who does not work and with two children, taking into account the spouse rebate, the Medicare tax and family allowance, the figures, which are very interesting, are these: In March 1983 the effective net tax was $2,261.30, which is about $43 a week; in July 1987-I have made some pretty careful, conservative assumptions based on those figures-after the tax cuts, the figure will be $4,006.74, which is $79 a week and a tax increase of $36 a week. If one wants to argue about those figures, take the inflation component out, and the percentage of disposable income-in other words, money in the pocket-taken by tax has increased by 30 per cent. Those figures are accurate, and I think they give the Australian taxpayer a pretty good idea of how he or she has been slugged by this Government. It is just an old Australian Labor Party trick. Whitlam started it; he was quite an expert. It lets inflation rip, which moves everybody into higher tax brackets, and then it announces a tax cut. It expects everybody to pat it on the back as if it has done the right thing by taxpayers, but the tax cut is just giving them back what they have lost through inflation. It makes sure that it does not give it all back so that it can continue on its merry way of spending other people's money like water. Mr Howard —Then you pretend you need the fringe benefits tax to finance it. Mr REITH —That is right. These figures do not include the new taxes on milk and wine and the increases in rent due to the capital gains tax and Labor's abolition of negative gearing. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) has talked about fuel tax; we have seen it go up from 6c-odd in March 1983 to about 20c in June 1987. For a Prime Minister who just wants adulation, power and high opinion poll ratings, and for back benchers who just want to keep their seats, let me tell you that their determination to keep pushing up taxes in Australia does not go down well with the electorate. People in my electorate of Flinders have had enough of Labor's ever increasing tax slugs. As a proportion of gross domestic product, tax is now 28 per cent, which is the highest it has ever been. People in my electorate and other people around Australia are sick and tired of having all this arrogant nonsense thrown at them about tax rorts. The fact is that the fringe benefits tax is not to stop rorts; it is to increase tax. The fringe benefits tax on quadriplegics and others is not a means to stop rorts; it is a means to increase taxes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Before I call the honourable member for Bendigo, I wish to say that sometimes members use quotations in debates which often do not assist their arguments or add any lustre to the House. I hope honourable members will bear that in mind. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(3.43) —I wish to mention a few points that have been raised in the debate so far on the Opposition's matter of public importance. This Government is proud of its record of tax reform. In the years that we have been in government we have provided genuine reform of the taxation system, and we have provided genuine cuts to people through personal income tax cuts. We started that process on 1 November 1984. At that time we had been in government for less than two years, but on that date we were able to make significant income tax cuts. The big step that we took at that time was to cut the rate that had been imposed by the Liberal Party of Australia when it was in government of 30c in the dollar to 24c in the dollar. That reduced significantly the average marginal rate which was paid by so many taxpayers in our community. That is what we did in our first term of government after less than two years. It meant that taxpayers on incomes between $12,000 and $28,000 received tax cuts in the order of $7.60 per week. We were not prepared to rest there with that one set of tax cuts. On 1 December this year the first stage of this new section of major tax cuts for personal income taxpayers will be introduced. It will cost 41.5 billion. On 1 December this year we will see the tax threshold increase from $4,595 to $5,100, we will see cuts in all marginal rates and we will see the 60c rate come down to 55c in the dollar. I would say that is genuine tax reform, and I challenge anyone on the Opposition benches to say that it is not. More importantly, there is the third aspect of our tax reform changes-our personal income tax cuts-and they come in on 1 July next year. That is when we will see the remainder of that tax cut program put into effect. That whole program will reduce the 46c rate to 40c in the dollar; there will be a reduction in the 61c rate to 49c in the dollar; and, as I have said, throughout the tax scales there will be income tax cuts for people. I can give some examples. Someone on $20,000 a year, without dependants, will receive in these next two series of tax cuts a total tax cut of $6.84 per week. That is a lot of money over a year-about $350-and I think that is a significant cut. A taxpayer, with no dependants, on $25,000 a year will be receiving a tax cut of $11.64 a week. Broadly, that is someone who is on or around average weekly earnings. They are very significant tax cuts indeed. For Opposition members to come into this House and question the integrity of this Government in providing meaningful tax reform and tax cuts to pay as you earn taxpayers is simply nonsense because, as the Acting Treasurer (Mr Hurford) has pointed out in his contribution to this debate, in terms of income tax cuts the Opposition's record is an absolutely appalling one. Most Australians remember the 1977 election campaign that was waged by the Opposition parties. They will remember the promise of a fistful of dollars-`vote Liberal and get your fistful of dollars'. There was no fistful of dollars after the election because the tax cuts were simply abolished. That was the Opposition's sort of style and its sort of record in government. It was totally untrustworthy, and it would be again if it were elected to government. What about the much vaunted tax cuts that were provided by the Liberals in the 1982-83 election campaign-the $2.4 billion of cuts? They came, firstly, from a blowout in the Budget deficit to $9.6 billion, and they also came from a massive increase in sales tax. There was $2.4 billion of income tax cuts, but there was also an increase in sales tax rates of 2 1/2 per cent, which cost taxpayers $500m; taxation of 7 1/2 per cent was put on many goods that had previously been exempt, which cost $150m; the excise exemption on off-road distillate was abolished, with a revenue gain of $304m; there was increased excise on motor spirit and distillate, which brought in another $200m; and there were increased taxes on tobacco, beer and so on, which brought in another $300m. All those increases added up to more than $1.6 billion. So this $2.4 billion in tax cuts was a myth; it was a fraud; it was a phoney; and it is typical of the sort of promise, commitment and record of the Opposition over the years. The Minister also made the point that the Opposition parties had quite a record in government for introducing new and higher taxes. He mentioned some of them: The bank account debits tax; the 2 per cent revenue duty; the 1978-79 income tax surcharge; new sales taxes on pet food, soft drink, television tubes, safety belts, oils and greases, insecticides and so on; the 33 1/3 per cent increase in sales tax on tobacco, petrol and beer; and, of course, the massive $3 billion increase in the fuel oil levy. Those are some of the things that the Opposition introduced when it was in government. I wonder where it stands now that it is in Opposition? Opposition members come into this debate and have the hide to raise the question of personal income tax cuts and tax reform when they do not have a policy at all on tax; they do not have a single policy. The only thing that one can safely say about the Opposition is that it is committed, or it seems to be committed, to abolishing sections of the fringe benefits tax; it seems to be committed to abolishing the assets test; it seems to be committed to abolishing the tax on lump sum superannuation; it seems to be committed to abolishing the capital gains tax; and it seems to be committed to doing some sort of deal on the free lunch arrangement so that businessmen can again rort the system at the taxpayers' expense. If one adds up those commitments, one sees that they come to well over a billion dollars. It is an interesting sum because the tax cuts which will be provided by this Government on 1 December this year will cost $1.5 billion. The point is that if the Opposition had its way and there were no fringe benefits tax, assets test or lump sum superannuation tax, we would not be able to provide any of the income tax cuts on 1 December. The Australian public needs to recognise that under the Opposition's policies there would be absolutely no prospect or chance of any personal income tax cuts taking place on 1 December. That is because the Opposition would be paying out on its other commitments to those who are better off in the community. That is the simple reality of where we are now. The previous Treasurer, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), made the point in a recent Press release that a person on average tax rates will pay more tax under this Government after the tax cuts have come through than he paid under the previous Liberal Government. That is totally untrue; it is a mischievous statement. The facts of the matter are that before the coalition's false tax cut of November 1982 the average tax rate for a person on average weekly earnings was 23.1 per cent. After that tax cut the average rate was 20.9 per cent. With the Hawke Government's first tax cut in November 1984, the average tax rate fell to 19.9 per cent and with the tax cuts to be made in December this year that rate will fall to 19.7 per cent. When we came to government the average tax rate of a person on average weekly earnings was 20.9 per cent. Under this Government it is 19.7 per cent, which shows very clearly that people on average weekly earnings are better off under this Government because we have provided genuine tax reform which has meant genuine income tax cuts for PAYE taxpayers. In this debate honourable members and the public ought to realise very influential sections of the National Party of Australia, the Liberal Party of Australia, the National Farmers Federation and the New Right are pushing very hard at the moment for a flat tax rate to be introduced. If a flat tax rate were introduced in Australia and it were revenue neutral, it would have to be set at a rate of 25 per cent. That would be the average rate facing all taxpayers. The reality is that the flat tax proposal advocated by so many people in the Opposition would mean a savage increase in tax for 75 per cent of ordinary Australians who are PAYE income earners. The Opposition's hidden agenda of what it would like to introduce if it were ever re-elected to government is a flat tax rate of 25 per cent, which would mean that 75 per cent of Australian taxpayers would pay more. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(3.54) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Plant Variety Rights Bill is to provide legislation to enable plant breeders to apply for and to receive proprietary rights for new varieties of plants which they develop. The Government's objective in introducing legislation for a plant variety rights scheme is to stimulate plant breeding effort in Australia and to encourage the development of new varieties of plants for our domestic industries and for export. An important added benefit for Australian farmers and horticulturists is expected to be an improvement in their access to new varieties from overseas. Through the proposed scheme Australian plant breeders are expected to improve their access to overseas markets for seed and nursery plants. These factors are expected to provide a significant boost to Australian agricultural industries and to allow our farmers and nurserymen to compete more effectively on world markets. We can also expect an overall genetic improvement in our plant industries. The proposed plant variety rights scheme would be similar in many respects to existing intellectual property rights granted under the copyright and industrial patents legislation, but incorporating particular provisions for protection of food supply to consumers and the use of plant material in further breeding and research programs. The proprietary rights conferred under the proposal would provide plant breeders, both public and private, with a means to recoup some of the high research and development costs involved in breeding new plant varieties. Plant breeding is expensive. It also takes a good deal of sustained effort by skilled and dedicated persons over many years. Because the results are uncertain, it is also a high risk activity. However, if we are to maintain our high levels of productivity and competitiveness, especially in international markets, if we are to develop new plant based industries and if we are to address new diseases of plants as they appear, Australia will need an active and sustained plant breeding program. This Government has moved on several fronts to improve the resources available for research and development including plant breeding, and to improve their management. We consider technological innovation to be an essential element in maintaining and improving international competitiveness in the rural industries. In my own portfolio, the commitment to rural research through the rural industry research fund scheme has been increased from $35m in 1982 to $78.5m this year. We have set the objective with industry of raising the respective industry and Government contributions to research through the RIRF scheme to 0.5 per cent of industry gross value of product within five years. We are now well on the way to that objective. I have also set about improving the management of the research funds by introducing professionally selected councils and strategic research planning principles into their operations. I expect that the reports we will receive from the research councils will be more relevant to Parliament and to industry. Research and development in the private sector has been of particular concern to this Government. It had been let run down to perilously low levels under the previous Administration. To redress that neglect my colleague Senator Button has led the Government's response with the introduction of a 150 per cent taxation deduction for private sector bona fide research and development expenditure. These measures are providing an incentive to new private sector investment in, for example, the plant, nursery and biotechnology industries. In the Government's economic and rural policy statement of 15 April 1986, I indicated that action on several fronts is necessary for Australia to maintain and to develop its rural industries. I outlined several new measures in that statement and several recent measures in support of technology development which I have repeated here. I indicated that the Government had received a report on plant breeding in Australia following an inquiry by Professor Lazenby and would make a final decision on the proposal for a scheme of plant variety rights. Plant variety rights is a structural measure which provides the condition for investment in plant breeding and development and which can be expected to improve the economic viability of our plant industries. I expect the measure to be most important for our nursery and horticultural industries but also to have potential to provide a significant boost for the grains, pasture and seed industries. Introduction of PVR legislation has been recommended by the Industries Assistance Commission following separate public inquiries into rural research in 1976, the apple and pear industries in 1985 and the vegetable and vegetable product industries in 1986. The 1985 Committee of Inquiry into the Grape and Wine Industry also concluded that PVR would be of considerable value to Australia's grape and wine industries through access to varieties and genetic material which would assist the industry in improving productivity and product quality. The introduction of plant variety rights in Australia is not, however, without some controversy. The issue has been the subject of considerable debate in Australia for well over a decade now. We must recognise that some sectors of our community are philosophically opposed to the concept of private ownership of plant material. The debate in Australia has occurred at a time when most other Western democracies have introduced legislation for plant variety rights. I personally continue to receive many representations both for and against the introduction of PVR legislation for Australia. Honourable members will recall that my predecessor introduced legislation into the House for a plant variety rights scheme in 1981. I considered that his proposal was deficient in many respects and I sought public consideration of the concepts proposed. It was left to the Senate to act on my recommendation, and the plant variety rights issue was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources. That Committee carried out a most detailed review of the plant variety rights issue. It received submissions and heard evidence from a wide spectrum of society and subsequently tabled its report in May 1984. The major recommendation was that the Commonwealth consider the introduction of plant variety rights in Australia. It made 22 other recommendations on improvements required in the 1982 Bill and on operations related to a PVR scheme. The Committee suggested that before any plant variety rights legislation is drafted the Department of Primary Industry closely examine evidence presented to the Committee which was critical of the 1982 Bill. That examination has been undertaken by my Department. The Plant Variety Rights Bill which I have now introduced has benefited from the Senate inquiry and encompasses features which address the needs and the concerns about a scheme for plant variety rights in Australia. The Australian Agricultural Council for several years now has given support to the introduction of a plant variety rights scheme. I raised the issue with State Ministers again at the recent meeting of Council as there have been some differences of attitude to PVR between States in the past. This, I believe, has reflected the strongly held view of some State plant breeders, especially breeders of cereal crops, that introduction of PVR would adversely affect the public plant breeding effort. It was in this context that the Government acted on the Senate Committee recommendation to establish an inquiry into plant breeding and options to upgrade the public plant breeding effort in Australia as a prerequisite to any decision to proceed on plant variety rights. Professor Alec Lazenby, Vice Chancellor of the University of Tasmania, completed that inquiry on behalf of the Government. In his report to me, Professor Lazenby has strongly recommended the introduction of an unrestricted scheme for plant variety rights. He closely examined a wider range of suggested alternatives to PVR but concluded that introduction of PVR legislation was the most appropriate way for the Government to stimulate both public and private plant breeding effort. He has made a number of other recommendations on co-ordination of the public plant breeding effort, its funding arrangements and on marketing the products of publicly funded research which are under consideration in the sub-committee system of the Australian Agricultural Council. I have already distributed the Lazenby report to the House and I will be discussing Professor Lazenby's recommendations on public plant breeding again with my State counterparts. Despite these public inquiries and resulting reports there remains a good deal of community uncertainty about PVR and because some of the concerns are so strongly held by some people I want to address them now. The main issues raised by the many people who write to me about PVR centre on its possible impact on Australia's Third World neighbours, the management of world-wide plant genetic resources, the ownership of essential food resources, market structure and consumer interests, and the effect on public plant breeding in Australia. All of these issues are important but we should recognise that they exist independently of the PVR issue. They are raised, however, as key arguments against the introduction of PVR legislation for Australia. Australia already has active programs to address each of these issues. For instance, under the aid program, the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research has been established with a $12.5m per annum program of research assistance for developing countries. Australia also financially supports the agricultural research and plant breeding centres of the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research which are specifically working on the problems of developing countries. Under CGIAR, 13 well-equipped research institutes have been established in developing countries to assist their development of suitable crop plants, farming systems and infrastructural support. They have been very successful. I receive many representations claiming that plant variety rights schemes in developed countries have led to the disappearance of land race cultivars in Third World countries and their replacement by improved varieties requiring high levels of inputs at substantially higher prices. This issue is also of concern to me but I believe the use of new plant varieties has been the result of significant changes in agricultural technology in developing countries. We cannot expect peasant farmers to improve their well-being through use of new technology on the one hand and be the conservators of the world's plant genetic resources on the other. It was quoted to me, for example, that India had 30,000 varieties of rice in common usage at the turn of the century but now uses only 30. I have no doubt that Indian rice breeders have used the best rice genes available to develop those 30 varieties now used and note that India is largely self-sufficient in rice despite its massive population increase since 1900. This Government is most concerned about preserving genetic resources. With the co-operation of all States and the Commonwealth through the Australian Agricultural Council a network of plant genetic resource-PGR-centres for our major economic species has been established across Australia and, with financial appropriations from the Commonwealth and the States, they are being progressively upgraded. This year $485,000 has been allocated by the Commonwealth for the establishment of a new facility at Biloela in Queensland for tropical field crop genetic resources. Australia also strongly supports the International Board of Plant Genetic Resources program of CGIAR and has joined the FAO Commission on Plant Genetic Resources. Australia has not accepted all the proposals before FAO on the international undertaking on plant genetic resources as we do not consider it in the best interests of Australia that FAO take control of our PGR collections nor the plant genetic resources of any other country. To follow on the above example, I am advised that India maintains a rice genetic resource centre containing some 34,000 accessions under the IBPGR network. Indian breeders also have access to the collection of some 56,000 varieties at the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines. Market operations, monopoly powers and resource ownership are addressed through the Trade Practices Act and the quite significant powers of the Trade Practices Commission. Much concern has been put to me that large multinational chemical companies are dominating the seed industry as a result of PVR schemes overseas. While several large multinational companies do have seed divisions, we need to recognise that international linkages have been developed in many industries over the past 20 or so years. We should also recognise the large number of relatively small, often independently owned businesses in the seed trade. The continued operations of a strong public sponsored plant breeding effort is also important in this context. It is my observation that the public plant breeding effort overseas has benefited overall from PVR. In summary, the overseas experience suggests that in some countries-for example, Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany and the Netherlands-the effort in public breeding of finished varieties has been reduced and there is now greater concentration of public funds on basic breeding research. On the other hand, in other countries, including the United States of America, South Africa and Switzerland, there has been an increase in public breeding of finished varieties. In New Zealand, where PVR was introduced in 1974, public breeding organisations have welcomed PVR and are using it to obtain rights to newly developed varieties. In fact, the introduction of PVR legislation has enabled New Zealand to develop an international plant breeding program and new export opportunities in seed and nursery products. I consider it essential that Australia maintain a strong public plant breeding effort for our economically important crops to ensure we continue to have varieties well adapted to Australian farming conditions and plant products suited to our principal markets. We must recognise, however, that we just cannot afford the cost of public breeding programs for our minor crops and that we will continue to be reliant in this area on genetic resources from overseas and the programs of private breeders. This is particularly the case in our horticultural industries. As I have already indicated, Professor Lazenby has put forward recommendations on improving the public plant breeding effort including improving its commercial perspective. Competition is certainly a key way to sharpen that perspective and I note that many public breeders would welcome competition and more effort overall in plant breeding in Australia. Professor Lazenby has recommended plant variety rights as the best way for the Government to improve the overall Australian plant breeding effort. The main economic premise underlying the many recommendations for introduction of PVR legislation is that there are too few resources employed in plant breeding research and development. Professor Lazenby has detailed those deficiencies for us. Some can no doubt be addressed by more financial support from governments. However, there are real limits to such action in the current Budget context. We must also question the desirability of just more government funding given that the current market structure has failed to encourage sufficient private investment into plant breeding except in the production of hybrid plants where private breeders are able to recoup the benefits of their investment. The extension of the principle of property rights to new plant inventions is recommended to us as the most appropriate measure to address the market deficiencies and is the basis of the plant variety rights legislation I have brought before the House today. I turn now to the main features of the Bill and the proposal for a plant variety rights scheme as the Government intends that it should operate. The scheme will be voluntary and open to any plant breeder, public, private or home gardener, to apply for and to receive a right. It will also be open to overseas breeders to apply for rights. The Government intends that Australia apply for membership of the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, which would allow Australian breeders applying for PVR under legislation in overseas member countries to be treated as if they were nationals of those countries. A reciprocal obligation would apply to Australia. All species and genera of plants will be potentially eligible for the granting of rights. However, no species will be included in the scheme at the outset. The Bill provides for a broad-based advisory committee to be appointed and responsible for advising the Minister on the admission of species and genera and the technical administration of the scheme. I expect that committee to consult widely in its deliberations. The definition of a plant under the Bill does not include fungi, algae or bacteria. To be eligible for grant of a right the variety must be new. The new variety therefore must be clearly distinguishable from any other known variety. It also must remain true to type in future generations. The variety must have been developed by selective breeding of plants, by selection from humanly induced genetic mutation or by selection from natural genetic mutation, but only in this latter case where some active intervention has occurred such that a new plant variety has resulted. It is not the Government's intent that the legislation apply to selections from a natural or wild environment or that it apply to varieties already known or available for sale in Australia. It is a scheme for new plant inventions. The grant of a plant variety right would entitle the breeder to sell or produce the variety for sale, or to license others to do the same for a period of 20 years. The 20-year period is to be timed from the date of acceptance of the first application with respect of that variety. An application can be amended or withdrawn. The Bill also provides for rights to be transferred, for rights to be surrendered and for rights to be revoked for instance if the grantee does not meet conditions of grant or pay annual renewal fees. As is the established practice with other forms of property rights, it is for the owner of the new variety to protect his or her right should infringements occur. The Bill provides for action against infringements to be initiated in the Federal Court. The grantee of a right is free to decide whether or not to licence a variety and whether or not to charge a royalty fee. The grantee would be obliged under the legislation to make the variety available publicly in reasonable quantities and at reasonable prices. In this respect the legislation is to be complementary with the functions of the Trade Practices Act with respect to trade in plant varieties with the exception of its main function, to grant an exclusive proprietary right over a plant variety. A complementary amendment of the Trade Practices Act will provide for this interface. The Bill contains quite extensive provisions designed to protect the interests of consumers, be they users of plants or their products. Farmers and home gardeners using a PVR variety will continue to be able to retain seed or other propagating material for their own use. Similarly reproductive material may be used for research and breeding purposes without infringing rights. Rights granted under the legislation will not extend to sale of plants with land, or reproductive material of plants as food, fibre or fuel. This will mean, for example, that a right granted over a variety of wheat will not extend to the use of that variety for bread making. Provision is made for compulsory licensing of plant varieties by the secretary to the department administering the scheme should the reasonable requirements of the public with respect to the plant variety not be satisfied by the grantee. The Bill also provides for a sample of the reproductive material of the variety over which a right has been given to be lodged at a designated plant genetic resource centre. It is the intent that this sample be available to the registrar for reference purposes and to the secretary for compulsory licencing purposes under circumstances which might include, for example, that no other material of the variety is available. Appeals against decisions of the registration authority could be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Government proposes that the scheme be administered by a technically qualified registrar to be appointed within the administering department and with responsibilities and duties for receipt and evaluation of applications, and entry to the register. The duties of the registrar are set out in the legislation. The scheme is expected to require only a very small executive secretariat for its technical and administrative functions. The registrar can be expected to draw on the extensive taxonomic expertise already available in Commonwealth, State and local herbaria and on overseas reference material. The scheme is expected to cost approximately $700,000 in the first three years of operation. This includes the cost of employing two additional staff members-one technically qualified registrar and one clerical officer-computing, production of a PVR journal, membership of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, plus equipment and operational costs. There are significant costs in establishing data bases of known varieties and their characteristics for each new species or genera added to the scheme which can only be capitalised and amortised over several years. Offsetting these costs, revenue received from applications and granting of rights, together with annual renewals over the initial three years is estimated at $150,000. It is anticipated that full cost recovery will be possible as the number of genera or species under the scheme increases, as the level of participation increases and the costs associated with its establishment decrease. The estimates have been based on experience with establishment of PVR schemes overseas and in New Zealand in particular. I propose a review of the effectiveness and impact of the scheme after 5 years as recommended by the Senate Committee. This review should also establish future self sufficiency or the requirement for further Commonwealth support. In conclusion, I have considered this issue from both sides of the House for several years. Many expert groups and individuals have debated the topic in forums such as the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources, the Industries Assistance Commission and Professor Lazenby's inquiry, all of which recommend in favour of plant variety rights. The Department of Primary Industry has investigated the workings of plant variety rights in other countries, and officers have closely examined all the evidence presented to the inquiries on this issue to develop a scheme which specifically meets Australian requirements. In the light of such evidence it is my conclusion that the advantages of plant variety rights for Australia outweigh the perceived disadvantages argued by the opponents to PVR and that we should proceed without further delay to introduce legislation for a plant variety rights scheme for Australia. I commend the Bill to the House, and in doing so I present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr West, and read a first time. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(4.17) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. On 6 June this year I announced that the Government would introduce legislation to terminate the receipt of applications under the Fraser Government's home deposit assistance scheme. That scheme applied only to homes purchased between 18 March 1982 and 30 September 1983 and is now effectively obsolete. Only a small number of late applications have been received over the past 12 months. Honourable members will recall that the previous Government abruptly terminated the home savings grant scheme in a harsh and draconian manner which left hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people disadvantaged by its insensitivity. This Labour Government has taken a more enlightened approach in terminating the outgoing home deposit assistance scheme. When we introduced the first home owners scheme in 1983, we undertook not to wind up the home deposit assistance scheme immediately. This was in order to allow sufficient time for people purchasing in the relevant period to lodge their applications. More than three years have passed since the scheme was superseded by the first home owners scheme. The Bill now before the House provides that 31 December, 1986 will be the last day on which an applicant can deliver a valid application under the old scheme. Very few applicants, if any, will miss out on assistance because of the length of time we have allowed for lodgment of their applications. Applications are now being received at the rate of only four or less per week. In the interests of administrative efficiency, governments must set end dates for lodgment of applications under superseded schemes such as this one. Savings in terminating the home deposit assistance scheme, which are largely administrative, will amount to about $150,000 in the first full year. the Bill also provides that 1986-87 will be the last financial year requiring an annual report to Parliament on the operation of the Act. As the Act currently stands, the 1985-86 annual report was the last required. However, for the sake of completeness we propose an additional report for 1986-87. The sensible way in which this Government has handled the termination of this scheme is one more indication of the priority we give to housing generally, and that priority is exemplified in our first home owners scheme. Almost $1 billion has been approved by the Labor Government under the scheme since its inception in October 1983. The $210m that has been allocated under the scheme this financial year will assist more than 41,500 low and middle income earners in buying or building their first home. This will bring to 245,000 by the end of 1986-87 the number of first home buyers helped under the scheme since it was introduced. Unlike the home deposit assistance scheme, the first home owners scheme realistically meets the financial needs of applicants through the choice of payment. Recipients have three choices about the way they receive assistance under the first home owners scheme. Over a five-year period, recipients can choose to receive a monthly interest subsidy, a lump sum plus a monthly subsidy, or a larger lump sum with a smaller monthly subsidy. The total benefit under the scheme is up to $6,000, depending on income and the number of dependent children. The first home owners scheme is only one example of the high priority this Government gives to housing. We are committed to providing affordable and adequate housing for all Australian households. Almost 500,000 Australians are employed in the housing and construction industry and the Government's policies in this area make a major contribution to the nation's wealth. Since this Government came to office in 1983, Federal funding for public housing has been increased by almost 130 per cent. This indicates the priority we place on alleviating housing related poverty. In 1986-87, a record $1,275.9m will be provided from this Government to the States for public housing. This is being provided under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement and as low interest loans under Loan Council nomination arrangements. The Bill now before the House continues this Government's real efforts in helping many thousands of Australians realise their home ownership aspirations. I commend the Bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Debate resumed from 24 September, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(4.23) —It would be nice to announce to the House that we had a taxation measure of which the Opposition fully approved. Unfortunately, that is not the case. We have yet another quite disgraceful taxation measure before this House in the form of the Taxation Administration Amendment (Recovery of Tax Debts) Bill 1986. The Bill proposes amendments to the tax Act that are said to be made necessary by a decision of the Full Court of the Queensland Supreme Court in an action by a Deputy Commissioner of Taxation to recover an unpaid taxation debt. The court, by majority, held that the time limits specified in the Queensland Limitations of Actions Act 1974 for the commencement of proceedings to recover a debt applied, by virtue of section 64 of the Commonwealth Judiciary Act 1903, to proceedings to recover taxation debts to the Commonwealth. That decision was contrary to decisions taken previously by supreme courts in Western Australian and New South Wales. According to the Acting Treasurer, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford), who introduced the Bill, the decision is contrary to the long held view that taxation debts could, by virtue of the crown prerogative, be recovered at any time. That is not a long held view, as I shall illustrate in my remarks. The Commissioner of Taxation has applied to the High Court of Australia for special leave to appeal against the decision of the Queensland Supreme Court. In other words, there are legal processes in train for the Commissioner to challenge the decision. Yet a Bill has been introduced into this Parliament, the intention of which is to negate the decision of the Supreme Court before any appeal is heard by the High Court. It is claimed, in support of the Bill, that unless prompt legislative action is taken, the recovery of many millions of dollars of outstanding tax, mainly from tax avoiders, would, at best, be delayed for several months and, at worst, prevented altogether. It is claimed that if the rationale for the decision were to apply Australia-wide, revenue of about $200m would be placed in jeopardy in 1986-87, and a further $700m would be at risk in later years. The Government says that that revenue loss cannot be countenanced and that not to act without delay to protect the revenue would be irresponsible. However, later in the Minister's second reading speech, the Government admits that, within the normal period of six years under the statute of limitations, action has not been taken to recover outstanding amounts. In other words, the Australian Taxation Office has been grossly irresponsible, it seems, in not proceeding, within a six-year period, to take some action. That is not action to recover the debt; it is merely to begin an action. When the Minister introduced the Bill he said: Over the past five to 10 years, they-- that is, taxpayers-- have resorted to every means available to frustrate the considerable efforts of the Commissioner of Taxation to resolve disputes as to liability and to secure the payment of outstanding tax and penalties. To delay the action now proposed would reward these tax avoiders for the frustration they have caused and would be completely out of step with this Government's commitment to ensure that such people do not escape their financial obligations to all Australians. The Minister continued: It will mean that, where liability for a taxation debt is, or has been, disputed, the period during which an action for the recovery of the debt may be commenced will correspondingly be extended by the time taken to resolve the dispute. That is all entirely beside the point. There does not have to be a resolution of a dispute before action is taken. The Commissioner can take action before a court at any time. The Commissioner can also collect the revenue first, after the assessment. The revenue can be got in and action can be taken at any time within six years. The action does not have to be completed within six years; only begun. If the Taxation Commissioner had been taking action in any of the matters that are outstanding within six years, the alleged problem would not have arisen. However, that has not been done. Legislation enacted by the previous Government to close tax avoidance measures was acted upon, obviously, in a slothful fashion by the Commissioner. It seems that he got into trouble because of a judgment of the Supreme Court of Queensland. Now the Parliament is being asked to enact retrospective legislation to try to get the Commissioner out of his difficulty. I make it absolutely clear that nothing the Opposition does in this matter can be construed as acting in collusion or in friendship with tax avoiders or evaders. The Government will try to say that. It will be telling untruths if it does so. I make it quite clear that it was the Fraser Government which introduced the legislation that, basically, the Commissioner has acted upon. The Commissioner has not been able to commence action in a number of those cases, we are told, within a period of six years. I emphasise that it is not a case of completing the action but of commencing it. We are asked here to support retrospective legislation to remove the statute of limitations on the Commissioner of Taxation. In other words, everybody in Australia except the Commissioner of Taxation will be subject to the statute of limitations. That simply is not on. We shall vote against it. The Opposition has prepared an amendment, which includes the reasons we oppose the measure. I move: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `the House declines to give the Bill a second reading as it is of opinion that- (1) the Commissioner of Taxation should be subject to the Statutes of Limitation Acts in the same way as any other citizen of Australia; (2) a 6 year period from the date of liability falling due should be sufficient time for the Commissioner of Taxation to initiate action for recovery of tax or to take appropriate legal action to safeguard his rights, and (3) it retrospectively applies an unlimited time for taxation liability to a certain group of taxpayers'. There is also another slight difficulty in discussing this matter in the House at the moment. The matter which led to the introduction of this Bill was decided in the Queensland Supreme Court. However, another matter is before the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. That Court is in the process of reaching its decision in DTR Securities Pty Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner of Taxation. The Court is presently considering its decision, having announced on 27 June 1986 that it would reserve its decision. It is very important to the functioning of our constitutional arrangement that there be self-restraint by each area of government when it touches on the sphere of the others. In this case the House is being asked to debate a matter which is currently before the Court of Appeal in New South Wales. I think that it is grossly improper for the Government to be apparently attempting to influence the decision of that court. The Bill, if enacted to operate unconditionally, will have the effect of retrospectively overturning any judgment of any court in Queensland or any other State court exercising Federal jurisdiction given after 24 September 1986. In short, the Crown in effect has sought to stay all proceedings in any court exercising Federal jurisdiction. If this is not the case, any final judgment given against the Commissioner after 24 September 1986 will be rendered nugatory if the Bill, when enacted, operates unconditionally. Clearly, the Bill is an attempt to influence the judiciary. Alternatively, if it operates unconditionally, it will override any judgment given for the taxpayer after 24 June 1986. Why is this Bill misconceived? Basically it is a Bill to overcome the inability of the Commissioner of Taxation to have commenced action on matters within a six-year period. That is really what it is all about. In 1883 Lord Justice Bowen said the following: It is a reasonable presumption that a man who sleeps upon his rights has not got much right. I think we could use Lord Justice Bowen's words about the Commissioner of Taxation. This is the way in which the system works. There is plenty of time for people to deal with it if they act promptly. Section 204 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 states that income tax and penalties are due and payable 30 days after service of the notice of assessment. That requirement is quite clear. A taxpayer has to pay up 30 days after he gets his assessment. A taxpayer is obliged to pay the tax assessed irrespective of whether he disputes the excessiveness of his liability to tax. In short, one must pay first and argue later. This policy is enacted in section 201 (1) of the Act, which provides: The fact that an appeal or reference is pending shall not in the meantime interfere with or affect the assessment the subject of the appeal or reference; and income tax may be recovered on the assessment as if no appeal or references were pending. The Commissioner has omitted to obey the clear directions of the statute which he administers in this particular case. The courts have taken a most stringent approach in refusing to grant applications by taxpayers for a stay of recovery proceedings brought by the Commissioner where the disputed unpaid tax relates to tax avoidance schemes. Mr Justice Hutley, in Deputy Federal Commissioner of Taxation v. Mackey in 1982, said the following: The fact that a taxpayer may arrange his affairs in any manner consistent with the law provides no justification for a Court giving any assistance to him in this attempt to resist the collection of the assessments issued by the Commissioner of Taxation. In other words, the Taxation Commissioner cannot claim that things are being delayed because of the courts. The policy given by the Act to the Commissioner of Taxation is that the payment of tax is not to be deferred pending resolution of the appeals. The Commissioner of Taxation must have ignored these instructions, as has the Treasurer (Mr Keating). The need for the Bill is a clear admission of these facts. The simple solution and, indeed, the only solution was for the Commissioner of Taxation to act promptly by commencing recovery action within the six-year period in the case of taxes, or two years in the case of penalties or, alternatively, to ensure that the objection procedure was completed within six years. These are the alternatives for the Taxation Commissioner. The assessment goes out and the taxpayer has to pay within 30 days. The Commissioner has two alternatives: He can resolve the whole matter and resolve any disputes within six years, in which case there is no problem; or, if he has not been able to resolve the disputes within six years, he can commence an action. That automatically removes the statute of limitations. Heaven forbid, what more does he want than that? In the case of penalties he has two years. That is fair enough, because they are more clearcut. We have the Treasurer coming into the Parliament saying: `We have a Commissioner of Taxation who is unable either to resolve the dispute within six year, or, not having resolved a dispute, to commence an action in a court'. Heaven forbid! What on earth are we going to get from this Treasurer next by way of taxation legislation that is utterly nonsensical? This legislation is not only nonsensical, but also absolutely unfair. Parliament resolved 64 years ago to make the Commissioner of Taxation subject to the limitation Act. Mr Rocher —Senator Keating, wasn't it? Mr CARLTON —I have here what actually happened. In 1922 the Hon. Stanley Melbourne Bruce, Treasurer, introduced the Income Tax Bill 1922. Clause 63-and this was carried over from the Income Tax Assessment Act 1915-stated: No statute of limitations at any time in force shall bar or effect any action or remedy for the recovery of income tax. In other words, Mr Bruce, on the advice of the then Commissioner, tried to repeat exactly what had been done in 1915 and this Parliament decided otherwise. Mr Stanley Melbourne Bruce was able to get the House of Representatives to pass the measure, as he presumably had the numbers, but it was opposed in the Senate. By whom was it opposed? It was opposed by Senator Keating from Tasmania, who said: I must also determinedly protest against this clause, because I am strongly opposed to the Income/Tax debt being exempt from any Statute of Limitation. If it were ever within my power to deal with the Taxation Department I should make it my duty to see that that Department, equipped and armed as it is, shall observe the ordinary rules of business, and shall be subject to the same conditions as are taxpayers in the community. I shall oppose the clause, and if supported press the matter to a division. Three cheers for Senator Keating; no cheers for Mr Keating. What happened? There was a division with seven in favour and 11 against. I am pleased to say that in the list of noes along with Senator Keating was also a Senator Lynch. Senator Drake-Brockman another very good name which is well known to the members of this House, particularly those from Western Australia, also opposed this measure. The same policy was continued with the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, which is the basic Act we have now. The preamble to that Act states: An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to the imposition of assessment and collection of a tax upon incomes. Since 1922 Commonwealth revenue legislation has been subject to the statute of limitations, thanks to Senator Keating. The present Bill ignores the fundamental tenet of the common law as enshrined in the Magna Carta, which reads: `to no one will we deny or delay right or justice'. That goes back to the year 1215. By enacting section 201, the Parliament authorised the Commission to recover tax even if it were subject to appeals or review. The Commissioner has slept upon the rights granted to him by Parliament. So Parliament's remedy in this particular case is to reject this absurd measure and ask the Treasurer to ask the Commissioner of Taxation to energise himself to the degree that it is possible for him, if not to resolve disputes within six years, at least to commence action in a court. The failure by the Commissioner to sue for the recovery of disputed tax and penalties has nothing whatsoever to do with the delays of the Commissioner in, firstly, determining objections against assessments or, secondly, referring requests by taxpayers to have decisions disallowing objections referred to the supreme courts and the taxation boards of review, now the Taxation Appeals Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Notwithstanding that these delays are irrelevant to the question of whether recovery action was prevented from being instituted, delay has been the subject of criticism by the courts. I give some examples because the courts have known about these difficulties for some time. The courts have known that the remedy was present, as particular judgments indicate. I quote Murphy J. in re O'Reilly; ex parte Australena Investments Pty Ltd and others in 1983: In the ordinary case the requirement of the Commissioner to determine an objection within a reasonable time means that he should act promptly. A delay of twelve months would, unexplained, involve a failure to perform his public duty. So said Mr Justice Murphy. I now quote Mr Justice Sheppard in Ahern v. the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation in 1983: I think it is unfortunate that it has taken the respondent so long to deal with the notices of objection. One appreciates that his office, like many others in the Public Service, is no doubt overburdened with work. We certainly acknowledge that that is the case with the Australian Taxation Office- One knows from one's experience of other cases that the time which has so far passed without any decision being made is not unusual. But the passing of that time coupled with a request for information and documents sent almost six months after the notices of objection had been lodged, leaves open the impression that the assessments have been made with insufficient consideration of the basis of the liability which is thought to be imposed. His Honour further said: That may well be an erroneous impression. But when the basis for the assessment is not able readily to be perceived-none was suggested in argument-it is an impression which people may be pardoned for having. That is quite interesting. The judgment of Judge Wilcox in Barina Corporation Ltd v. Deputy Federal Commissioner of Taxation in 1985 said this: Section 188 (1) of the Act provides that, if the taxpayer's request to treat the objection as an appeal and to forward it to a specified Supreme Court is accompanied by a fee of $2, the Commissioner shall forward the objection in accordance with the request. It follows that upon receipt of the solicitor's letter the Deputy Commissioner came under an obligation forthwith to forward the objection to the Court. He did not do so, although as will appear the Deputy Commissioner continued to hold-and to press-the view that he was entitled to immediate payment of the tax assessed, it took no action to facilitate resolution of the issues raised by the applicant's objection. The applicant was forced to take the further step of serving a formal notice to refer under section 189 of the Act. That section provides that, if within 60 days after receiving the request accompanied by the fee of $2 the Commissioner does not forward the objection, `the taxpayer may at any time and thereafter give him notice in writing to do so, and the Commissioner shall within 60 days after receiving notice . . . forward the objection to a . . . court accordingly. The judge said: It is puzzling that this section was thought to be necessary, having regard to the existence of a subsisting mandatory duty by the Commissioner to refer under section 188. It is more puzzling that a period as long as 60 days was allowed for the simple mechanical task of referring the objection to the Court, especially in a context where the objecting taxpayer is under an obligation to pay the tax pending resolution of the objection. It is even more puzzling that, in this case and despite the formal notice under section 189, the Deputy Commissioner did not succeed in producing and filing in the Supreme Court the necessary one-page standard form Notice of Transmission of Objection until 24 January 1985-93 days after the section 189 demand and six months after the letter of 23 July 1984 requesting the reference. There are no doubt good policy reasons why the Income Tax Assessment Act adopts the principle that, unless an extension of time is granted by the Commissioner under section 206, tax is due and payable and recoverable by action at law notwithstanding the existence of an unresolved objection: see sections 177, 201, 204, 208 and 209. However, that principle was capable of effecting a considerable hardship on a taxpayer, especially if it is ultimately held that tax has been erroneously assessed. Under such circumstances, considerations of basic fairness demand the Deputy Commissioner should immediately comply with a request under section 188-a formal notice to refer under section 189 should never be necessary-and should co-operate in arranging an expeditious hearing of the appeal. The judge continued: I regard as intolerable the delay of six months necessarily inflicted upon the present applicant in relation to the determination of its appeal. Such delay appears not to be peculiar to the Sydney Taxation Office. The judge noted another case and continued: If it is beyond the capacity of the Australian Taxation Office to so order its procedures as to ensure immediate reference of an objection to the Court or to the Board after request by the taxpayer, perhaps the legislation should be amended so as to allow the taxpayer himself to initiate proceedings in the Court or the Board by filing a suitable document. These comments were made by judges speaking out on matters of administration of the Australian Taxation Office. Why should judges make these sorts of comments, which could be quite embarrassing for Treasurers and no doubt for taxation departments? I quote the remarks of the Rt. Hon. Sir Frank Kitto, formerly a justice of the High Court of Australia, in a paper entitled `Why write judgments?' in 1974. He said: In some cases, as we all know, a judgment serves an incidental but not unimportant purpose by exposing a defect in the law such as an anomaly or a clear injustice in its operation, or an impropriety in its administration, and I suggest that it is well within the proper scope of the judges' functions to bring the matter forcibly to the attention of the public and of the relevant parliament or the appropriate organ of the executive government. True, it is common experience that parliaments are slow to react to judicial suggestions for reform, even if they react to them at all. True, it is also that administrators include many who resent having their conduct questioned, and bitterly resent it having it publicly disapproved. But a judge will not be deterred by the likely ineffectiveness of his protests or by the scowls of those who are found to have used the authority wrongly. He remembers that a Court no less than the Chamber of Parliament is, if I may use H. A. L. Fisher's expression, ``a place in which hidden things (can) be brought to light and shameful things exposed in their shamefulness''. The judge said: I firmly believe that judicial indignation in a proper case is not only permissible but required by the judges' position in the social structure. Beyond question, calm detachment in thinking and moderation in expression are essential to the judges' task. In these respects the demands of his office are high indeed. But a careful, balanced, not over stated exposure of a situation of law or fact made properly, I maintain, be made in forceful words, in biting words if need be with the purpose of bringing the demands of a healthy social conscience to the attention of a parliament or a government. I have quoted Sir Frank Kitto at some length as well as a number of other judges' remarks about the administration of taxation law merely to draw attention to the fact that the cases I cited indicated delays much less than six years. The basic case that the Opposition is making here is that, if the Commissioner of Taxation cannot either resolve a dispute within six years or, not having resolved that dispute, at least commence action within the six years and so remove himself from the statute of limitations, there is something dreadfully wrong with the whole administration of the Australian Taxation Office. I do not want to make any overall judgment on that because I know the pressures under which the Taxation Office has operated and I know the tremendous strains it has been under since the enactment of substantial legislation by the Fraser Government to prevent tax evasion and avoidance. That legislation was certainly difficult to implement and placed considerable strains on the Australian Taxation Office. Here the Government, well over three years in office, is coming to us and saying that after three and a half years it has not been able to run the Australian Taxation Office sufficiently well for the Taxation Office to have at least presented itself to a court to commence an action within a period of six years. It is simply not good enough. The proposal put forward by the Government cannot be sustained on any grounds of fairness or justice. It is a retrospective proposal; that is why the Opposition cannot support it. I will make some final remarks in view of the fact that the Auditor-General has quite recently criticised the administration of the Taxation Office. I was about to say that there is a somewhat unseemly, which I suppose it is, argument between the Auditor-General, Mr Monaghan, and the Commissioner of Taxation, Mr Boucher. When Mr Boucher received from the Auditor-General the draft report of the efficiency audit relating to the prescribed payments system within the Australian Taxation Office, Mr Boucher was moved to complain to Mr Monaghan using the following words, inter alia: I had thought that the intention of efficiency auditing was to increase the efficiency of Government administration. From reading this report one could gain the impression that the objective was somewhat simpler; simply to heap criticism, no matter how trivial, on the auditee. The Auditor-General replied to that in the following words, inter alia: Clearly, you are annoyed because the Australian Audit Office . . . has not come to the same appreciation of the administration of the PPS- that is, the prescribed payments system- as that which is entertained within the Australian Taxation Office . . . But is not uncommon for the auditor to come to a different view from the auditee. He went on to state: The fact that you may not persuade me on some points does not provide a legitimate ground for launching an attack on the objectivity of the audit. Later he stated: I do note that, having regard to the attachments to your letter, some of your comments seem tantamount to a proposition that virtually any public criticism of the ATO's operation would be prejudicial to the ATO's administration of the tax laws. That seems to reflect the comment of Mr Justice Kitto, who said that criticisms by Auditors-General or by judges are not often well received. I am not in a position to judge the merits of this particular argument between the Auditor-General and the Commissioner of Taxation. I understand the administrative and management problems in a large department of that kind and I understand how strongly taxpayers fight not to pay tax; I understand that very well. But I do say that the measure that has been brought in here goes well beyond the bounds of acceptability in a fair society. We will not put up with this sort of thing. We receive hundreds of pages after hundreds of pages of taxation legislation of immense complexity, some of which is terribly unfair. We will simply not put up with a proposed change in the administration of the Income Tax Assessment Act which takes away citizens' rights retrospectively and allows the Commissioner of Taxation liberties which are not granted to the ordinary citizens of Australia. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Rocher —Yes. I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(4.54) —I feel obliged to comment at the outset that I am somewhat disappointed, but certainly not surprised, at the view that the Opposition has taken towards the Taxation Administration Amendment (Recovery of Tax Debts) Bill which has been introduced by the Acting Treasurer, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford). I indicate to the House that I suppose the Opposition's position is consistent in that it has consistently overturned, opposed and attempted to denigrate any measure that this Government has sought to bring into the House to reduce the inequities in the taxation system that have existed for so long and which certainly flourished under the stewardship of the previous Government. Of course, those of us on this side of the House will say that that is about the only thing on which the Opposition is consistent. It is important that we look at what the Bill endeavours to do. Some very interesting points are raised. The Bill proposes amendments of a safeguarding nature. As the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) rightly pointed out, they have been made necessary because of a decision taken by the Full Court of the Queensland Supreme Court in an action by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation to recover unpaid taxation debt. That is the key. We are talking about two important points. The taxation was unpaid and it was a debt. No one disputes that. The court held by a majority that the proceedings were in some way invalid in the Commonwealth's approach to recover that debt. In fact, the decision in Queensland was contrary to decisions taken in New South Wales and in Western Australia. So the Commonwealth Government, faced with an obvious concern for an outstanding unpaid taxation debt, faced with the proposition that in some State courts in Australia the way was freely open to deputy commissioners of taxation to recover those debts, was suddenly confronted with that decision being challenged in one area. As I have indicated, that decision was contrary to previous decisions and was contrary to a long held view that taxation debts could, by virtue of Crown prerogative, be recovered at any time. The honourable member for Mackellar went to great length, citing taxation cases and talking about Senators Keating and Lynch and other people of days gone by. He indicated that in the Opposition's view the position of recovering debts at any time and of the statutes of limitation was wrong. He also went to considerable lengths to point out that at some point in time there must be a holding spot, a time when the statutes of limitation no longer hold. That is fine and well if one is prepared to eliminate vast sums of taxation moneys that can be recovered by the Government. It does not matter which government is involved. The fact is that for 1986-87 $200m that is recoverable has been placed in jeopardy and a further $700m is placed at risk in later years. I return to the original point that this is an unpaid taxation debt. Do we seriously believe that the Opposition will countenance the writing off of $900m worth of unpaid taxation debt? What is the catchcry? We hear the honourable member for Mackellar say that it is the Commissioner's fault. He says that when the Opposition was in government it was mighty and tremendous and put up all sorts of anti-tax avoidance legislation and that it was just superb. Mr Spender —Right. Mr MARTIN —The honourable member for North Sydney says: `Right'. The point is that the vast majority of that $900m is owed by tax avoidance participants from the late 1970s and early 1980s. Who was in government then? Where are the champions who enacted that anti-tax avoidance legislation? What did they do to recover even one dollar of the $900m accumulated in the time of their stewardship? They did nothing. Yet the honourable member for North Sydney says: `We introduced legislation. It was put in place. It was hard'. The honourable member for Mackellar said: `None of this taxation legislation is easy. It is all difficult to put in place. But we did it'. But what did they get from it? They got absolutely nothing. Because of an anomaly that has now surfaced, we find that, unless something is done quickly to remedy that, that potential $900m will disappear. The honourable member for Mackellar indicated that the previous Government's measures to close tax loopholes were acted on in a slothful manner by the Australian Taxation Office. He said that the Commissioner of Taxation has always had the prerogative and ability to recover that money. It is interesting that, if the legislation was in place at the time of the former Government's term of office and if it had introduced these tough measures, it did nothing about it. Now the Opposition members say that the Commissioner of Taxation is to blame. They understand that he has plenty on his plate at present but they say that he approached the question in a slothful manner. It is characteristic of Opposition members to shift the blame to public servants to make up for the mistakes and errors and gutlessness on their side when they had the stewardship of this country. They did not move on the matter. Similarly, we have heard a great deal in the tax debate in the last few days as to why no move was made on section 26 (e) related to fringe benefits tax. That provision was in existence, but did the then Government do anything about it? It did not do a thing. Did that Government move on the $900m that was owing? No, it did not. Opposition members would refuse to support any of these measures because those members seek to protect the people whom they purport to represent. They also protect the people whom they would not move against in previous discussions in this House-namely, the bottom of the harbour operators. Did Opposition members support the retrospective elements of legislation on those matters? They did not. One has only to remember the millions-one suspects billions-of dollars that were lost because of the Opposition's failure to back the opportunity presented by this Government to enact legislation to get back the tax that people had refused to pay. They had avoided that tax illegally and it had become an unpaid taxation debt. I hope that this retrospectivity element will not sway the Opposition members into believing that that should be the only reason to negate attempts by this Government to improve the situation and recover $900m worth of debt. If Opposition members base their view on that argument, they will be shown to be the hypocrites they are. They say that they put these recovery measures into place but they failed to act on them. Therefore, it was left to the present Government to go down the correct track. Finally, I sincerely hope that the honourable member for Mackellar will do us all a public service. Having spent half an hour listening to the sort of nonsense he put forward, I would like to know who writes his speeches. If that person ever applies for a job with any Labor member, we would like to be forewarned. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(5.04) —The Taxation Administration Amendment (Recovery of Tax Debts) Bill is not a Budget measure. Less than two months ago the Government did not foresee the need for legislation of this sort. That is important when one considers the coalition's opposition to the measure. The only obvious reason for this legislation happens to be a recent decision of the Queensland Supreme Court, as the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) said. Incidentally, it does not matter that the Queensland Supreme Court's decision is under appeal to the High Court of Australia. The Government in its blind determination to impose an even more oppressive tax regime, has elected to legislate, notwithstanding a serious doubt about the absolute need for yet another few pages of tax law and another nine pages of explanatory memorandum, on top of the tax laws and Acts that we have had to deal with in the last nine or 12 months. The crux of the matter is that this Government does not think that six years is long enough for the Commissioner of Taxation to collect assessments. We are talking about six years. If the Commissioner cannot get his act together well inside six years, there should be a royal commission into the efficiency of the operation for which he has practically unfettered responsibility. The Commissioner has more power, more discretion and more inclination to bargain than any of his predecessors have had. If he cannot institute recovery procedures within six years of an assessment becoming due and payable, then heaven help us. If any department or other instrument of government admitted that it was unable, not to recover sums due but merely to institute legal recovery procedures within six years, outrage would be expressed by Opposition and Government members alike. Everyone would be on the bandwagon. But when it comes to the Commissioner, a whole set of new and increasingly unacceptable criteria is to apply. It is at least arguable that this state of affairs is due more to the immense legislative and assured power which the Commissioner can now exercise than it is to the commitment of the Commissioner to act reasonably efficiently and expeditiously. As part of its rather lame justification for this legislation, the Government says that there is a total of $900m revenue involved, of which $200m will or may be collected this year. Mr Gear —That is a lot of chook raffle money. Mr ROCHER —Well, it is difficult to place much faith in that estimate. Although the income assessed may have been derived in the late 1970s, the six years did not commence in these cases from the year in which the income was earned, but from the date that it was assessed as due and payable. Assessments arising from the bottom of the harbour legislation passed by the previous coalition Government could only have been issued some time after legislation was passed by that Government in 1982. I repeat that if the Commissioner cannot get his act together in three years, and issue assessments and commence formal recovery procedures within a further six years, there is something drastically wrong. It follows that, given the timing of the enabling legislation, there is no part of the $200m estimated to be recoverable this year which can be attributed to the bottom of the harbour schemes. I note that the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) left the chamber as I made that point. I have no doubt that he will return to make one of his emotive speeches-the same speech that we have heard on a number of occasions. The immediate intention is to protect the revenue against the inefficiency and lethargy of the tax authorities, and is about taxes payable under laws in place long before 1982. It matters very little that this proposal is to vary the date on which the limitation period ends, if the High Court upholds the decision of the Queensland Supreme Court. It matters even less that State law will apply where no objection to an assessment has been taken by a taxpayer. The clear intention of the Bill is to restart, to have a second bite at the date on which the statutes of limitation in the various States and Territories will commence and therefore finish. It is impossible to escape the conclusion that the genesis of this Bill is to be found in one of the more nefarious techniques adopted by the tax authorities in recent years. What is happening throughout Australia in far too many cases is that tax officers are issuing assessments for taxes due which have absolutely no basis in fact. They simply-and I do not exaggerate-pluck a figure out of the air. More often than not, they assess the nice round figure of $1m, although it seems to be capable of variation either up or down. The only consistency in this practice is that invariably it is much higher than the sum that could conceivably be due. There are examples of assessed taxes being overstated by a factor of 300. The instance I have in mind involves an unsubstantiated assessment for $1m, which was eventually reduced to $30,000. However, and probably needless to say, this reduced amount was arrived at only after a considerable period of worry, time and application of the personal resources of the taxpayer concerned. That sort of thing is happening. That technique is being adopted all around Australia, and it seems to be on the increase. Coupled with the right that now resides with the Commissioner, which enables him to demand immediate payment of assessed taxes under pain of crippling penalties and penal interest on amounts outstanding, if a formal objection to an assessment is unsuccessful the ploy in making unsubstantiated assessments concentrates outrageous and unjustified power in the hands of the Commissioner. I suspect this Bill is designed to add to that power. It is part of the golden rule syndrome that successive commissioners have sought successfully in some cases, and latterly certainly successfully, to have enshrined in law. We know the old gag: The golden rule is that he who has the gold rules. This Bill intends that the Commissioner will have a few more ingots and that his rule becomes even more refined; it enables a slide into further gross inefficiencies within the ATO of the kind identified by the Auditor-General in two of his recent reports to this Parliament. It is already more than pretty rough that the Commissioner can and does issue assessments which are overstated and which have absolutely no basis in fact. That he may compound that by imposing penalties and interest and contrive to delay the hearing of formal objections without fear of rebuke or without fear of oversight by a government only adds to warranted fears about tax collection procedures being adopted and in prospect. The Commissioner can, and already does by the means described, create the circumstances which, if not resolved in wheeling and dealing with the ATO which in turn holds the whip hand because it holds the gold, must inevitably lead to lodgment of a formal objection to what may or may not be a baseless assessment. As the creature of its own creation and given the privileges, power and negotiating posture wielded by the Commissioner, the Government seeks to make the ATO unassailable and free from the strictures of normal and decent behaviour. Let us not forget the Commissioner's recent statement to the effect that, notwithstanding this Parliament's rejection of what would have been the enabling legislation, he would nevertheless proceed to issue assessments for retrospective taxes. That, I suggest, is very close indeed to contempt for the expressed decision of the elected representatives of this country and is matched by some of the attitudes being reported by constituents and others following their dealings with the Australian Taxation Office. The Commissioner must be persuaded to use his powers sparingly and with due regard to the sensitivities of those with whom he must deal. We are a long way from the Middle Ages when tax collectors were sometimes hanged for too rigorously enforcing tax laws, but the Government should be aware that it faces the political equivalent of execution as a consequence of any heavy-handed administration of tax laws. Be that as it may, the odds are London to a brick on that this Government will lose office at the next election anyway. Apart from the long list of broken election promises, it is probably the tax regime that this Government has inflicted on an unsuspecting public that will be foremost amongst reasons for it to be dismissed with little ceremony. This Bill is but the most recent evidence of its single-minded intention to crash or crash through in its headlong pursuit of more and more revenue to finance its profligacy. To do so it shows that it is prepared to give its agent-in this case, the Commissioner of Taxation-unprecedented and unbridled power. The Government seeks to abandon any pretence of responsibility for efficient and fair dealing in the tax collection process. In this Bill it illustrates also that it is not prepared to await a decision on its appeal to the High Court against the decision of the Queensland Supreme Court. The Government's lack of patience and its unwillingness to accept the six-year statutory time limitation that applies in the commercial world and to all State governments are just further evidence of its insatiable appetite for revenue. In that, it aspires to emulate the Swedish model, at the behest of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, its master. Even worse, for its immediate effects, is the Government's determination to impose another burden retrospectively. The Bill before the House stipulates that any applicable limitation period will be taken to have ended as if it had commenced to run from the time when an objection or any subsequent appeal proceedings in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or a court in relation to the decision becomes final. Therein lies the blueprint for the Commissioner to apply the golden rule of which I spoke earlier. He may sit on his hands and do absolutely nothing about bringing on an appeal or dealing expeditiously with an objection. Under this plan there is absolutely no need to do anything because, after all, the Commissioner either holds the money that is in dispute or has an irrefutable right to receive it, with added penalties, until such time as the alleged tax debtor can show otherwise. Among the several reasons that we are opposed to this measure and that we have moved the amendments is one that I now stress: This measure provides a positive incentive for the tax authorities not to get their house in order. That is contrary to the often stated objective of the Government when it says that it wants to foster efficiency in the Public Service overall. Indeed a Commonwealth government of any colour would earn universal condemnation if it did not promote efficiency in the Public Service. This Bill defies the rhetoric which would have us believe that this Government wants to improve the efficiency of its instrumentalities. In place, these provisions will enshrine the temptation not to get on with the business of collecting lawfully raised tax debts. Perhaps even worse, we will see an increase in, or maybe a continuation of, the dubious practices that I have already mentioned. If the tax authorities choose to increase the heat that they already inflict, such a development will be facilitated by this Bill. Remember also that the $900m revenue that the Bill claims to protect is not all there will be to it. This measure is not confined to collecting that sum; it is to be with us for all time. One could safely assume that in the fullness of time there will be a great deal more tax than the $900m that is mentioned as part of the Government's justification for the measure that is being debated. It is for those reasons and for reasons mentioned by my colleague the honourable member for Mackellar that I support the amendments moved by the honourable member and oppose this Bill. Mr GEAR(Canning)(5.19) —I refer briefly to a few of the points that have been made by Opposition members in the debate so far. They spoke of passing legislation whilst there is a case before a court, and they spoke of it as though it were very objectionable. I would draw to the attention of those who believe it the actions of a previous Liberal Government in Western Australia, the Government of Sir Charles Court, with the Ashton joint venture. It runs along similar lines. I will not take up the time of the House but, for those who take an interest in that sort of thing, the Ashton joint venture case in 1979 in Western Australia did exactly the same thing about which the Opposition now speaks when it cries foul. Certainly the Taxation Administration Amendment (Recovery of Tax Debts) Bill which is before us today is yet another example of a judicial or semi-judicial body handing down judgments that have enormous financial implications-in this case, $900m. That is a lot of money when we consider that the fringe benefits tax, about which so much has been said in recent days, will raise only $700m in one year. Many of these judgments are dubious in law or equity. Some of the decisions can only be described as self-indulgence by adjudicators who have no fiscal responsibility for their decisions. I point briefly to some of the cases which impinge on the tax revenue in exactly the same way as does the case before us today. The one which most readily comes to mind is the case of O'Brien v. Repatriation Commission. The background to this case shows that section 47 of the Repatriation Act sets out the standard of proof to be applied by the Repatriation Commission when it decides a pension claim. Section 47 (2), which was inserted quite correctly by the previous Government in 1977, states: The Commission . . . shall grant a claim or application . . . unless it is satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that there are insufficient grounds for granting the claim or application . . . as the case may be. What do we find in the O'Brien case? In February 1985, the court in O'Brien's case said that even where there was no evidence pointing to a war service relationship, a pension will be payable unless it is shown positively that no such connection exists. We all remember the pain that this Government went through in taking out that ruling by legislation. The Opposition stalled the amendment in the Senate for something like 10 months for nothing more than political reasons. The Opposition did not oppose the legislation in this House, but it made a lot of political milage out of it when it got to the Senate. I will refer briefly to other examples. In the case of Kingston v. the Secretary of the Department of Social Security, Mr Kingston was 80 years old and shared a flat with a woman who was 75 years old. They had been cohabitating since 1965. In 1969, Mr Kingston applied for a spouse rebate in respect of his de facto wife. Since 1971, the Department of Social Security had treated Kingston and his de facto wife as if they were married and accordingly had paid them their pensions at the married rate. In October 1984, Kingston applied to the Department of Social Security for a full pension. The application was rejected, but the Administrative Appeals Tribunal set aside the decision. The Department of Social Security had argued that Kingston was living with a person of the opposite sex as the spouse of that person on a bona fide domestic basis, although not legally married to that person. It is illuminating to look at one aspect of the AAT decision. The AAT stated: . . . before such a relationship is converted (ie housekeeping relationship) into a man and wife relationship there must be some kind of spark to ignite the tinder of cohabitation . . . We are talking about taxpayers' money and to have semi-judicial bodies such as this adjudicating on cases that impinge on the public purse really makes us wonder. Another case to which I want to refer is Doyle v. Secretary of the Department of Social Security. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal set aside a Department of Social Security decision to recover $1,235 overpayment of unemployment benefit from the applicant. Doyle had worked as a real estate agent during the period of his receipt of unemployment benefit. The AAT stated that because of this Doyle was clearly not unemployed. However, even though the Department of Social Security was prepared to accept $1 a week, because the applicant was 57 years of age-and I come back to what I said before about there being no basis in law-the AAT stated: . . . the expectation that a recipient of public moneys to which he was not entitled aged 57 should look forward to an obligation for almost 25 years, is untenable. We should be talking about public money. However, in this case we are talking about the age of the recipient, not the principle. I referred earlier to the case of Mr Kingston. I refer now to another case which flies 180 degrees in the other direction. In 1982, Mr Kennison was in receipt of unemployment benefit at the married rate as a result of his cohabitation with C, then aged 16 years. In 1983, the Department of Social Security decided to pay Kennison the single rate of unemployment benefit because C was under 17 years of age, the legal age of consent in South Australia. The AAT set aside this decision. It was argued by the Department of Social Security that because it was a criminal offence for a person to have sexual intercourse with a person under 17 years of age, it could not administer the social security system so as to allow any person to benefit from the commission of a criminal offence. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. However, that argument was rejected by the AAT because in this case there was no direct evidence of a sexual relationship. As I said, that flies 180 degrees in contrast with the Kingston case. I will not take up any more time of the House in referring to cases, but I will read a couple of headlines that relate to similar cases. The Sydney Morning Herald of 25 June 1986 carried the headline `Serviceman's Pension restored by Tribunal'. The Bulletin of 10 June 1986 contained an article under the headline `Stupidity in the Billion Dollar Social Security Scandal'. An article in the Australian Financial Review of Monday, 30 June this year, under the headline `Social Security loses Ruling on Bonus Units' stated. The public trusts sector, very much battered by regulations, has managed to claw a bit back through an official ruling that bonus units issued by so-called real or total property growth trusts are not income for pension purposes. It is stretching the meaning of `income' to incredible limits to say that that is not income. Having established that judicial or semi-judicial bodies have a very real impact not only on tax collection but also on the expenditure side of government money, let me move on to what the Bill is all about. One of my colleagues spoke earlier about tax avoidance. In this regard, honourable members opposite, whether in government or opposition, have a very poor record. They should hang their heads in shame when we talk about tax avoidance because, to the extent that tax avoidance goes on, the revenue has to be made up from other areas. I will detail in a short while the tax avoidance measures that this Government has put in place to date. However, we should ask ourselves who pays for the tax avoidance industry. Up until now, it has been the poor old mug, the pay as you earn taxpayer, whose tax is taken out of his pay. He is the one person in the whole system who has no access to any tax avoidance schemes. He is the person to whom this Government in particular has paid specific attention, not only by taking out the rorts and making the system fairer, but also by reducing the level of taxation. On the question of principles, I want to refer to a letter signed by Senator Messner when the Opposition was in government and addressed to Mr Clohessy, the General Secretary of the University Salaried Officers Association of Western Australia. One sentence which encapsulates what we are talking about today states: As you are no doubt aware, under the income tax law tax avoidance and evasion are not criminal offences and the Government would be most reluctant to bring forward legislation, on the basis of your proposal, in order to protect the revenue. It is a very novel concept to say that tax evasion is not a criminal offence. The letter further states: It recognises-- that is, the former Government-- that low and middle-income earners taxed under the PAYE system at present bear too large a proportion of the burden of tax revenue and is determined in its efforts to redistribute the tax impost more equitably among the community. I say to those honourable members opposite who will speak later that they should give us some evidence of where that happened. I do not think they can because these are just words on paper. Certainly the main topic of conversation in this House in the past couple of days has been the fringe benefits tax. That tax is an attempt by this Government to do what Senator Messner said in his letter when he was Minister Assisting the Treasurer in the former Government. I will return to that matter later. To get back to the area of tax avoidance and evasion, let us look at some of the things which have occurred. At one stage of the debate the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) interjected: `What have you done?' Here are a few of the things we have done. The first Hawke Government introduced the bottom of the harbour recoupment legislation which was rejected four times by the Senate. We tried four times to get the Senate to agree to the fact that there were people out there who had taxpayers' money and who should give it back. The legislation passed this House four times and was stalled in the Senate four times. We never got the money back. I think that we should have another go. We should remind the people of Australia of who protects the tax avoiders in this country. The Opposition today is opposing this measure which aims at stopping $900m of taxpayers' money from being collected. The prescribed payments system was another discrete piece of legislation that was introduced by this Government to catch those in the cash economy. It has been very successful. We all remember the hue and cry at the time from those people who were affected by it, making all sorts of outrageous claims that the cost of houses would skyrocket and unemployment would be rife. Of course, with the passage of time we find that that is not true. The current debate about the fringe benefits tax has a sense of deja vu about it because the same sorts of cries are going up again but I guarantee that by this time next year it will be bedded down and we will not hear any more about this tax in exactly the same way as we heard no more about the prescribed payments system. The Opposition might have a word to say about it from time to time, but I am sure it will not be taken seriously after the tax cuts have been made. Then there was the abuse of superannuation, the `cherry picker' schemes. This Government introduced legislation to recoup that money. That was one of the most scandalous schemes that preyed on employees' superannuation. This Government went after that money, but the Opposition opposed its efforts. Then there was the question of taxation of lump sums. Short term employees were evading tax by taking remuneration in lump sum form and we stopped that. We reduced the tax threshold for unmarried minors to $416 to reduce income splitting. We removed tax exemption for friendly societies, tax advantages for short term life insurance policies and basic flaws in the capital gains provision of section 26 (a), which is now section 25a. We also abolished unfair tax advantages in automatic in-out averaging provisions and income equalisation deposits schemes. We brought about a major overhaul of tax penalties provisions to put some real teeth into the Income Tax Assessment Act and brought about major increases in the compliance staff of the Australian Taxation Office for audit work and for dividend and interest checks. Not only did we do all those things, but we also gave the Taxation Office more manpower with which to work. The second Hawke Government also made some changes. This information is a little out of date, but I shall still make these points. We closed off loopholes in the interest withholding provisions and terminated the tax advantages for deferred interest securities. We introduced retrospective legislation to recoup moneys that were lost through `new generation' trust stripping. We removed tax advantages for non-monetary benefits received by business taxpayers, such as gifts or holidays for meeting sales targets which were nothing more than income and which were never taxed. We have removed tax advantages associated with leasing by non-residents and re-presentation of the bottom of the harbour legislation is to be pursued. As I said before, we should do this to remind the people of Australia just who is protecting the tax evaders and which party is really dinkum about going after them. At this time the Government does not have a precise estimate of the revenue being lost through tax evasion and avoidance. It is unlikely to be possible ever to put a precise figure on this. We estimate that the total amount is likely to be some thousands of millions of dollars and certainly we are after that money, or at least as much as we can get because we recognise that the people who have contributed more than they should are the poor old PAYE taxpayers and they should be the focus of any moves that are made to recoup that money. The Opposition's tactics on tax avoidance have been evident today and yesterday, particularly in relation to the issue of fringe benefits tax. Over time fringe benefits were becoming a major tax avoidance area. They were part of a scheme that allowed some people not to take all their income in taxable cash. Instead, they were taking significant fringe benefits which were escaping the tax net. That money had to be made up by poor old mugsy, the PAYE taxpayer. We believe that all income should be taxed, whether it is in cash or kind. That makes the system a lot fairer. Not only are we doing that, but we are also taking that money from fringe benefits tax and not spending it-it is not an add-on like the oil revenue that masked the incompetence of the former Government, the oil revenue that added on to its tax expenditure-but using it to lower those PAYE income tax rates, bringing the top rate down from 60c in the dollar to 49c. The Liberal Party, and the National Party which supports it, would be quite happy to have two systems-one for those people who have always had a privilege and who have always been able to skirt around the tax system by taking fringe benefits instead of taxable income. The Leader of the Opposition talks about principles and about tax evasion. I read out a quote from Senator Messner, who talked about this when he was in government; yet he is the same senator who put out a mindless Press release the day before yesterday saying that employers would not send their female staff home in taxis on dark nights because they had to pay fringe benefits tax. What kind of employer would that be? If an employer was really concerned about em- ployees' safety, would the tax stop him or her from sending those employees home in a taxi? I would venture to say not. I venture to say that there may be other reasons why they would not take taxis. In his doorstep interview yesterday when he opposed the principle of the fringe benefits tax, the Leader of the Opposition certainly did a 180-degree turn on what he had said before. That is not the only time he has done that. He did that with the assets test too. We all remember how he privately supported the assets test, but did a 180-degree turn when he became Leader of the Opposition. The Bill before the House today once again points to the difference between the Government and the Opposition in the tax avoidance area. We are going after $900m worth of taxpayers' money that should go back to the taxpayer. Once again the Opposition opposes us. That does Opposition members no credit at all and I believe that over time the people of Australia will come to identify the Liberal and National parties as those parties which protect the tax avoiders in this country. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(5.37) —Listening to the last two speakers, the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) and the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin), one heard the old refrain. First, we were told that this was the Government of light and truth which was doing something about tax avoidance and giving a fair deal to the average Australian. We know how much truth there is in that. Second, we were told that this was the Government that had stamped on tax avoidance. Yet the honourable member for Canning, once he got away from those curiosities of social security which so attracted his attention at the beginning of his speech, could not cite a single major anti-avoidance measure introduced by this Government-nor is there one. The reason for that is perfectly simple. The major anti-avoidance measures were introduced under the previous Government by the then Treasurer, the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). That is why this Government has not had to do anything about major anti-avoidance measures. All it has had to do is try to pick up specific schemes which might be outside those major anti-avoidance measures which the Fraser Government introduced. As I listened to the honourable member for Macarthur, I was puzzled because I have to ask the question: Who has been in power for the last 3 1/2 years? The Labor Government has been in power. What has it been doing? Why does it have to come here after more than 3 1/2 years and say: `Look, we have made such a mess of things and the Commissioner of Taxation has been so incompetent that we are forced to come to this Parliament and tell you that, unless you pass this piece of legislation, a great deal of money will be lost'. I have great scepticism about whether a great deal of money will be lost, but if it is to be lost, it will be lost because of the incompetence of this Government and the Commissioner of Taxation and the way in which both the Government and the Commissioner have gone about collecting debts due to the Commissioner. If the Commissioner does not do his work in a timely way, he and the officers responsible in the Australian Taxation Office should be disciplined by this Government. That is the short answer to this Taxation Administration Amendment (Recovery of Tax Debts) Bill. There are other answers to this Bill and they are to be found in what it is and what has been said about it by the Acting Treasurer (Mr Hurford), who strolled back into the House after the shadow Treasurer had spoken and who is now here. I am glad he is because there are one or two things that I wish to say to him about his second reading speech so that he can tell us whether what I am saying is wrong. The Bill is another monument to the Government's incompetence specifically in respect of taxation and not only generally. We have had eloquent testimony of its specific incompetence in dealing with tax in the answers which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has given, or has sought not to give, and the answers which the Acting Treasurer has given over the past two days in Question Time. They either do not know the provisions of the fringe benefits tax or they do not give a damn how that tax will affect and hurt ordinary Australians. The Acting Treasurer in his second reading speech said three things. First, he said that the amendments are of a safeguarding nature. Secondly, he said that the decision of the Queensland Full Court was contrary to decisions previously taken by the supreme courts of Western Australia and New South Wales. Thirdly, he said that the decision of the majority of the Queensland court was contrary to a long-held view that taxation debts could, by virtue of the Crown prerogative, be recovered at any time. The Minister says that, in the interests of safeguarding the revenue, he seeks the assent of the House and of the Senate to the Bill. Let us examine each of the reasons which the Minister has given because all three are misleading. Before I turn to the detail, let me say what the Bill will do. It will institutionalise administrative incompetence in an office which has been marred by incompetence in the administration of the Income Tax Assessment Act, as has been made plain by the references of the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) to judgments in the courts. It is a Bill which treats the judiciary with contempt by overruling decisions yet to be made. It is a Bill which seeks retrospectively to alter private rights against citizens in favour of the Government should the decision of the High Court of Australia-the House will understand that the decision of the Queensland Full Court, which is the concern of the Government, is now on appeal-go against the Commissioner. The Government claims that it is safeguarding the people of this country. It says that amendments of a safeguarding nature are being introduced. If the Government is safeguarding the rights of the people, it is protecting and guarding them, but the clear and plain intent of the Bill is to remove rights if the High Court decides that the Queensland court is right. It is as simple as that. What is the right in question? It is the right to rely on the statute of limitations. If the High Court decided that the Queensland Court was right, the effect of the Bill would be in all cases where no decision has been given, or in all cases where proceedings have not been taken by the Commissioner, to deny the right of taxpayers, regardless of the time that the Commissioner has sat on his rights, to say: `This is a stale claim. You should have brought it before. You cannot bring it now'. That is the policy which underlies the statute of limitations, and it is for the Government and the Commissioner, as a servant of the Government, to act as moral litigants. That the Commissioner has not done and is not doing by seeking this special treatment from the Government by asking it to intervene while cases are before the courts and to override in advance the decisions that the courts might make. It is misleading to suggest that the Queensland decision was contrary to established judicial views, which is plainly what the Minister was saying in the second reading speech. I do not say that the Minister has come to the House intending personally to mislead. I do not know whether he knew, asked or cared, but it can only be said that he does not know very much about the portfolio in which he is acting if we judge him by the answers that he has given on fringe benefits tax. He has said that the decision of the Queensland Full Court is contrary to decisions previously taken by the supreme courts of Western Australia and New South Wales and contrary also to a long-held view, an assertion with which I shall deal separately. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what the decisions are. There is a decision in New South Wales, and the Minister is saying by implication that there is a long-established course of judicial decision. He rests his case upon precedents going back many years. There is a 1985 case in New South Wales-DTR Securities-of Mr Justice Lee at first instance that is now on appeal to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales. The Court of Appeal of New South Wales reserved its decision on that decision, that is the judgment of Lee J. on 27 June. Is that one of the cases to which the Minister is referring? Is that an old New South Wales decision? By implication the Minister is saying that there is a trend and an authority upon which he rests his case. There is a Western Australian case, and that is Essex Securities. It was decided on 13 March 1986. Once again, it is the decision of a single judge following the decision of Mr Justice Lee in DTR Securities. Is that the case to which the Minister is referring? There may be other cases, and the Minister has his advisers present to tell him whether that is the position. If the two cases to which I have referred are the only cases, and the Minister should be able to tell us, there is no possible justification for suggesting, as he did, that the Government is seeking to correct something which is contrary to decisions previously taken. Surely the Minister is not seeking to say that he is basing his argument on decisions made in the past 12 months. The uninstructed reader would assume that there is a long-established course of judicial authority. Perhaps there are cases. The Minister has his advisers and they have had years to consider the matter. Accordingly, they will be able to tell us. I turn to the third justification for the Bill that the Minister outlined at the opening of his second reading speech. He said that the decision of the majority of judges of the Queensland Full Court is contrary to the long-held view that taxation debts can, by virtue of the Crown prerogative, be recovered at any time. That view has been dispelled by what the honourable member for Mackellar, the shadow Treasurer, has said in the House, and I shall trace the reason for that. The Minister has referred to a long-held view, but a view held by whom? Did the Minister ask? Did he care? As the honourable member for Mackellar said, this Parliament resolved 64 years ago to make the Commissioner subject to the Limitation Act, and I shall remind the House again of the course of history. The first Income Tax Assessment Act was that of 1915. Section 47 of that Act provided: No statute of limitation at any time in force shall bar or affect any action or remedy for the recovery of income tax. That is perfectly plain. Parliament was saying in 1915 that the Commissioner, in recovering income tax, was not to be barred by limitation of action. A later Parliament disagreed with that view, and the honourable member for Mackellar has read to the House what Senator Keating-how ironic that it should be a senator by the name of Keating-said in the Senate when the clause in the 1922 Bill came before it. That was clause 63, and it was identical to section 47 of the 1915 Act. The clause was thrown out by the Senate and by the House of Representatives. What could be a clearer indication of parliamentary intent? That was known to the Commissioner of Taxation, to the Treasury and to the departmental officers. Why did we not hear anything of this from the Minister in his short second reading speech? Short second reading speeches on difficult subjects seem to be the order of the day for this Government. It hopes to sneak things through quietly, to say as little as possible, and not to be questioned. Of course, if it is questioned, under the rules-if one can call them rules-that prevail in Question Time, it need not answer in any event. We have clearly established that the reasons given by the Minister are misleading. If in one respect I am in error and there are past decisions which said that the statute of limitations applies or does not apply to the Commissioner, suing in right of the Commonwealth, I should be glad to have reference to them, since the departmental officers are present to assist the Acting Treasurer. As to the argument that there is a long-held view that taxation debts could, by virtue of the Crown prerogative, be recovered at any time, I should like to hear from the Minister how he could possibly say that, in view of the legislative history in this House of the statute of limitations, the Commissioner should have the right to come back at any time-that is what he wants-open up any case, no matter how old, no matter how stale, and say: `You will pay this amount of money and you will pay the following penalties'. The taxpayer could say: `But that occurred 10 or 12 years ago. I do not have the records', to which the Commissioner could say: `That is too damned bad. You are going to pay'. In the time that I have left, let me say something else about the conduct of the Government and the contempt that it has shown for the judiciary. The honourable member for Mackellar pointed out that it is important that self-restraint exist for the functioning of government. There have been two appeals. In one, the Court of Appeal of New South Wales has reserved its decision. In the second, there is a special leave application to the High Court, which the Commissioner could seek to expedite if he wished to get a quick answer out of the High Court. The Bill is unnecessary if the basics of good administration are observed. I remind the House that tax and penalties are due and payable by the date specified in the notice of assessment or, if no date is specified, 30 days after service. It is as simple as that. The principle, as the honourable member for Mackellar has said, is that of pay first and argue later. Section 201 (1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act makes the policy of the Act clear beyond argument. It states: The fact that an appeal or reference is pending shall not in the meantime interfere with or affect the assessment the subject of the appeal or reference; and income tax may be recovered on the assessment as if no appeal or reference were pending. If default is made, the Commissioner can sue immediately. By bringing action, the Commissioner prevents time running. So no problem of statute of limitations need ever arise if the Commissioner is competently conducting the duties of his office. The need for the Bill is a clear admission by the Commissioner and the Government that the Commissioner has ignored the principle of immediate recovery following assessment and has failed to take legal action. He now seeks, in complicity with the Government, to be bailed out from that grievous incompetence. The honourable member for Mackellar read to the House a number of references in the judgments which have been caustically critical of the way in which the Commissioner has gone about his affairs. I shall repeat two only. The first is what Mr Justice Wilcox said in 1985 in the case Barina Corporation Ltd v. the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation: I regard as intolerable the delay of six months necessarily inflicted upon the present applicant in relation to the determination of its appeal. Such delay appears not to be peculiar to the Sydney Taxation Office. Other criticisms were just as caustic, if not more caustic. I do not have time to repeat them. I shall repeat only one: In the ordinary case the requirement of the Commissioner to determine an objection within a reasonable time means that he should act promptly. A delay of twelve months would, unexplained, involve a failure to perform his public duty. I agree entirely with that statement of law by Mr Justice Murphy in re O'Reilly; ex parte Australena Investments Pty Ltd and others, which he made in 1983. There are other objections to the Bill-its unintelligibility, and the extension of the recovery period of penalties from two years to six years. Overwhelmingly, it is a charter for delay, for institutionalised incompetence, and for entrenched arrogance when it comes to dealing with the claims of taxpayers. I do not take that as a general charge against all the officers in the Taxation Office, but I do say that the Office, in the way in which it goes about its business, from time to time shows arrogance which no government department should ever show towards citizens of this country. Mr Hurford —Grossly unfair. Mr SPENDER —It is not grossly unfair. It is borne out by what the courts have said. In conclusion, let me add-- Mr Hurford —I have had a lot of experience of tax practice and I know that what you are saying is rubbish. Mr SPENDER —I shall put to one side the Minister's experience in tax matters because, God knows, he has demonstrated his incompetence in that area. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(5.57) —The Taxation Administration Amendment (Recovery of Tax Debts) Bill is of concern to all Australians and must be opposed. It has very little to recommend it. I support most of the comments made by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). Again, we find that the government of the day has been called on to create an unnecessary and draconian law to make it easier for the Commissioner of Taxation and his officers. They do not want any work. There is plenty of evidence of that in the past. More importantly, we are entering a new era, which seems to be forgotten by many people as they are overwhelmed by things such as the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax. I am talking about the move to self-assessment. Yesterday, I made some comments and read parts of the document entitled `Income Tax Self Assessment' that was published by the Commissioner. I shall read some parts of that document again because they show us what happened and what will happen. Under the heading `Current Assessment System', meaning in fact the past, the main features were: Taxpayer completes an income tax return form setting out income, deductions and rebates. This form is lodged with the Commissioner who, on the basis of the information disclosed in the return: - confirms that the taxpayer has correctly applied the law in calculating his or her taxable income and in claiming rebates; - ensures that the calculation of taxable income and some other calculations are arithmetically correct; - in some cases, attempts to verify the accuracy of certain claims, particularly in the deduction area. Under the heading `Proposed Self-Assessment System', the document states: In its essentials, self-assessment will not involve a big change- I do not know about that- Basically it means; The Commissioner need not (and in the main, will not) check the taxpayer's application of the law before issuing a notice of assessment. The Commissioner will make no attempt (in most cases) to check in the first instance that taxpayers have declared all their assessable income and claimed only those deductions and rebates to which they are entitled. It is likely that the circumstances in which assessments can be amended will be widened. We find that the alterations to the taxation Act have made it possible for any assessment to be made over three years and the old seven-year rule-the additional four years on the grounds of failure to make full and true disclosure-is still there. It continues: Returns will still be examined to ensure that they are suitable for computer input and will be coded to enable the correct calculation of tax and the balance payable or refundable-This examination will not be concerned with whether taxpayers have applied the law correctly nor with the issue of complete and accurate disclosure. To the extent that it is possible by computer processes, there may be some variation of amounts disclosed before issue of assessments. Computer systems will continue to detect errors made by taxpayers. Further on in the document we are told that about the various audits that could follow. In particular, desk audits can be undertaken within the Taxation Office and, most importantly, field auditing can be conducted. The document continues: . . . significant expansion of the existing operation with audit emphasis being biased towards the largest business taxpayers. Audit techniques and practices are likely to be varied through greater use of modern technology and increased usage of the team audit concept. Honourable members might ask what all this has to do with this legislation. It is quite clear. Taxpayers will not be informed in future that they have made a genuine mistake. They might believe some of the Government's own interpretations within this Parliament, such as statements made by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) which were grossly misleading and corrected by the Commissioner. People who have only listened to the Treasurer and not read the corrections made by the Commissioner can be subject to field audit much later-in fact, seven years later. These people would like to have some certainty in respect of taxation. This legislation seeks to remove the statute of limitations which is inherent in our laws and which says simply that if a certain period is exceeded no legal action can be taken. That statute applies to the people in the gallery, it applies to members of this House, it applies to the general public and it should apply to the Commissioner of Taxation, who has some responsibility to administer the law efficiently. It is a pity that in some cases he does not. Worse than that, a recent issue of the Australian Financial Review contains an article written by Albert Smith entitled `Tax harassment hits a snag in small business'. The article states: Morely is well known among trade magazine publishers and the business press. Now Mr Morely is livid over a threat by a tax officer, which Morely regards as tantamount to blackmail. In line with the Tax Office's policy of carrying out more field audits, P. R. Morely and Associates was recently subject to a field tax audit for the 1984-85 tax year. After examining the firm's records, the tax officer presented Mr Morely with an assessment. Mr Morely, in company with his accountant, vigorously disputed the assessment and told the officer he would appeal. He has to find an extra $200 to do it these days, but that is his right. The article continues: `You realise if we want we can audit the previous three years as well,' the tax officer is reported by Morely to have said in trying to push Mr Morely into accepting the assessment. The tax officer is reported to have made this statement in the presence and hearing of Mr Morely's accountant. What angered Mr Morely most was the threat to reopen past years' tax returns if he persisted in his intention to appeal against the officer's assessment. Mr Morely has not hidden his name. I have not read anything in the newspapers and to my knowledge the Acting Treasurer (Mr Hurford) or the Treasurer have not denied that article. I assume it is correct. I assume that this legislation will further enhance the possibility of field auditors using those sorts of threats. Might I add, contrary to the interjection made by the Acting Treasurer a while ago, that I have had numerous complaints of that nature delivered to me. I have corresponded with the Commissioner of Taxation asking whether he would desist. I do not say that this practice is general amongst field auditors because, when my business was subject to a field audit some years ago, I found the officers were very co-operative and very sensible. So were we. We were well aware of our rights to demand that the entire audit be conducted on our premises. But unlike some other people I have referred to in this Parliament, we did not have to worry about that. We handed the officers our receipts, as I recollect, in a beer case and told them to bring them back when they had finished. In fact, when they brought them back they sent off one takings book to another businessman in the town. I did not thank them for that, but that was an accident. Those people treated me fairly. But I hear of too many examples of people who are not treated fairly. I do not know whether it is the lack of skill on the part of the officers concerned, but I have to say that when I complained to the Commissioner about some of these activities-what I refer to as plea bargaining-the Commissioner said that all was fair in love and war and that he felt that he needed this right to have some start over the taxpayer. If that is the case, we certainly need some new legislation but not legislation of this draconian nature. I think what is wrong with the whole taxation system is the fault of successive governments which have constantly responded to the demands of tax commissioners that the law be tightened to guarantee that they can get tax revenue at all costs when, quite clearly, the taxpayer has some rights. It is our responsibility as elected members of parliament to protect those rights. This is a problem. I have heard Government member after Government member stand up in this place and argue that the Government's revenue is sacrosanct and that it must be gained at all costs. It is not fair and it is not right that people should be trampled over. But it goes back a lot further. It is interesting that a government spokesman talked about the report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. I have studied that document at length. At page 32, paragraph 3.21, Costigan stated: In the material that I have examined I have observed that some officers of the Australian Taxation Office and of the Crown Solicitor have had difficulty in understanding the mechanism for proving intent to defraud in a conspiracy case. At times I have detected comments that no intent to defraud could be present if the Taxation Assessment had not yet issued . . . He went on to say that that is not correct, that the officers did not understand and that in these circumstances something else should be done. I remind honourable members that Costigan discovered that the bottom of the harbour scheme disaster commenced as early as 1973 under the Whitlam Government. The inability of the Taxation Office and, more importantly in this case, the total lack of co-operation by the Crown Solicitor's Office, allowed this particular matter to develop and be almost an accepted tax practice. The accepted tax practice that applied in this regard resulted in many innocent people utilising a mechanism that was clearly wrong. Had that practice been knocked on the head at the time of the Whitlam Government by the Taxation Office and the Crown Solicitor's Office many people would not have been hurt. I keep coming back to the point that the Tax Office has had adequate laws for a long time but it has always wanted something that was a bit easier. I think this is remarkable and quite improper. I understand the previous Commissioner promised that if he got the bottom of the harbour legislation, the recoupment legislation, he would not use section 260, which we had been told was adequate. During the Costigan inquiry the Commissioner was told by eminent Queen's Counsel such as Mr Justice Brinsden that he had the power. They told him back in 1973, 1974 and 1975 under a Labor government to go and get them but he did not. I do not know whether we can blame the Government. Everything that the Tax Commissioner failed to do during the Fraser era was blamed on Mr Fraser and Mr Howard. When one reads the Costigan report the reality is that a lot of problems resided with the Government officials. The Tax Office's constant excuse is that it cannot get the money because the statute of limitations has been applied to it, as it should. It wants the Government to help out and reduce further the rights of Australians. Section 26 (e), which covers barely a page, has been replaced, to all intents and purposes, by a stupid fringe benefits tax proposal comprising hundreds of pages of complicated legislation. The Government said that it would not work. Yet the legislation reads pretty simply to me. Section 26 states: The assessable income of a taxpayer shall include- (a) profit arising from the sale by the taxpayer of any property acquired by him for the purpose of profit-making . . . Paragraph (e) states: the value to the taxpayer of all allowances, gratuities, compensations, benefits, bonuses and premiums allowed, given or granted to him in respect of, or for or in relation directly or indirectly to, any employment of or services rendered by him, whether so allowed, given or granted in money, goods, land, meals, sustenance, the use of premises or quarters or otherwise . . . That is pretty simple and straightforward. But the Commissioner complained to the Government-as did the Australian Council of Trade Unions with its politics of envy-that that was not sufficient. He wanted 160 pages to replace it. Now we are seeing how that draconian legislation is hurting people. It is getting the wrong people and, strangely enough, that legislation has entrenched the tax deductibility of those benefits in the hands of the wealthy. For the top bracket taxpayer there is a financial advantage to let his employer pay the tax. That is being published in various publications, and there has now been a learned discourse from a professor in one of the universities. I have that document. The point I am trying to make is that in this legislation the Government is at it again-introducing legislation to make life more difficult for ordinary Australians when it is not necessary. Let us think about the Commissioner's complaint that he could not make section 26 (e) work. I want the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to listen to this because today he read out the advertisements in the papers for the packages. They are still being advertised in the paper for the very reason that there is profit in using them for certain people in the higher income brackets. We were told that such schemes were to be dealt with under this arrangement. I agree that there was a simple device in these packages. It was that one did not tell. That is tax evasion. Tax avoidance is when one tells and gives the reasons why the Commissioner of Taxation cannot have any more money. Tax evasion is when one fails to tell. Obviously certain executives benefiting under the arrangements of packages were not telling. One of the obligations on the taxpayer is to state his vocation or method of employment. People would tell the Commissioner that they were, perhaps, the chief executive of a very substantial company; yet their remuneration was less than many of their employees. Apparently the Commissioner and his staff were not smart enough to know that something was amiss when they got that information, so they demanded, and this very willing Government, egged on by the ACTU, brought in the fringe benefits tax legislation to try to overcome a problem that never existed. The necessary legislation already existed. I have read it to honourable members; it is clear enough. In fact, it probably gave the Commissioner a fair bit of discretion and it could have been applied if the Commissioner was prepared to read the tax returns. The Commissioner talks about how, for instance, he will use computers under his self-assessment proposals. He could have given simple alphanumeric designations to the level of employment which one declares in one's tax returns, whether one is a general manager or a floor sweeper. Surely he could have put numbers against those alphanumeric designations such as $100,000 a year or $15,000 a year. If the figures did not match up, the Commissioner could have asked some questions. But that solution was not adopted. Neither now is the natural efficiency of getting out and getting after tax avoiders and at least pursuing some legal process to guarantee the collection of money regarded as good enough. No wonder the Opposition opposes this legislation. We think that it is foolish and wrong. It is a classic example of the 600 pages-now it must be more than that, probably 800 or 900 pages-of additional tax legislation being brought to the Parliament by this Government when most of it is not necessary and, in fact, most of it is downright intrusive and is putting great pain on taxpayers. I stress my concern in this matter. I do not want to be critical to the point of calling the Commissioner things that he is not. I repeat that I have struck officers who are very co-operative. I just want to make the point that small business people and other taxpayers have rights. They are not there to be bullied. We know the simple rules that it is fair and reasonable, if one proposes to inquire into a taxpayer's affairs, that one should give him notice of that. The taxpayer is not going to burn all his documents. It will be found that most people have done very little wrong. Mr Morely is most concerned because apparently the assessment that he was concerned with related to the use of his wife's car. She is a partner in the business and apparently a hard worker, as is my wife who has worked all her life in our family business and uses a vehicle. This is the way family businesses operate. Those sorts of situations should not be the subject of threats. People should be dealt with fairly, reasonably and politely. Demands should not be made upon the wife to see the books from a farmer's household, as I have had it reported to me, when the husband is away and he happens to be the one responsible for the cheque book. Those things should stop and I think it is a great pity that they have occurred. Similarly, the Commissioner should not have gone back on the promise of his predecessor and used section 260 to do what this Parliament rejected and denied the right of this Government to do; that is, to go further back into the bottom of the harbour activities regarding companies' reserves and non-taxable profits. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Acting Treasurer)(6.17) —In following the tradition in closing the debate of thanking honourable members who have taken part, let me immediately state that the Government does not accept the Opposition's amendment. It is, of course, little more than-or little less than-opposing this Bill. The attitude the Opposition displayed in this debate is another example of the Liberal and National parties protecting their friends who have been participants in tax schemes. They are protecting tax avoidance participants. They are protecting those who have had to be dragged through the courts so that the revenue could receive its just desserts. Who loses if this happens? Of course, it is the small taxpayers of this nation who have to find the $900m involved in the Taxation Administration Amendment (Recovery of Tax Debts) Bill 1986-$200m in the current financial year and $700m thereafter. There is $900m at stake. I repeat: It is just another example of the Liberal and National parties protecting people who should not be protected. They are protecting people who have been living off those who should get protection from this Parliament and who will be protected by the Hawke Labor Government. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) led for the Opposition. He said that with this Bill the Government is attempting to influence the New South Wales Supreme Court in the case of DTR Securities Pty Ltd. That is just not so. The Bill, by its express terms, does not apply to the decision in the DTR Securities case. Proposed new sub-section 142ka (4) specifically excludes any case in which a court has given a decision on a limitation argument. The DTR Securities case is such a case. Proposed sub-section (7) directs that a court is not to take this legislation into consideration in deciding any case in which the limitation question is raised. Clearly, therefore, the claim that the Government is attempting to influence the New South Wales Court of Appeal in this case is totally without foundation. While on the related subject of so-called retrospective legislation, which is one of the points which the honourable member for Mackellar sought to raise, I remind him that in 1978 the then Government, of which he was a supporter if not himself in the Ministry at that time, introduced legislation to overcome a court decision while an appeal to the High Court of Australia was pending. I refer to the Nilsen amendments. The Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 3) of 1978 was introduced by the then Treasurer, now the Leader of the Opposition. The amendment put beyond doubt that an employer is entitled to a deduction for the cost of an employee's long service and other leave only at the time when payment for leave is made. I could give the House more details of that Bill but I will not do so because debates on that Bill can be looked up. When those amendments were introduced by the then Treasurer, now Leader of the Opposition, the Commissioner had appealed to the High Court against the decision and at that time the Court had not considered the appeal. Why can we not have some consistency on the part of the Opposition? The then Government members, who are now in opposition, who spoke in support of the retrospective effect of those amendments were the then honourable member for Macarthur, now Senator Michael Baume, the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) and, of course, the honourable member for Bennelong, who is now Leader of the Opposition. Their relevant comments are in Hansard for all to see. Ultimately, the High Court reversed the Victorian Supreme Court decision and made the amendments unnecessary with hindsight. I hope that that will apply in this case too. I turn to the next point raised by the honourable member for Mackellar when he asserted that necessary action may be commenced at any time notwithstanding that an objection has been lodged. That is not so in practice. Notwithstanding that the taxation laws provide for the payment of tax whether or not an appeal has been lodged, the courts have on a number of occasions given clear indication that recovery action should not be proceeded with to its ultimate conclusion until any dispute about liability has been finalised. In scheme cases, such as those involved in this $900 million, the schemers whom the Opposition is seeking to protect, the Commissioner had advice from senior counsel that the courts would not support moves to institute recovery actions while appeals were pending. In non-scheme cases, it has generally been the Commissioner's practice to defer recovery action pending determination of appeals provided the taxpayer agrees to pay 50 per cent of the amount in dispute. But let us remember that most of the cases with which we are dealing here are scheme cases. The issue of recovery writs outside of limitation periods in these cases had not until recently been challenged by taxpayers or their legal advisers. The delay in taking recovery action was therefore intended to be fair to taxpayers who were disputing their tax liabilities and was supported by senior counsel and the High Court. I repeat that those taxpayers were mainly tax avoidance participants. Those objections against assessments have dragged on for many years and delayed the efforts of the Taxation Office and the Government to recover what is owed-efforts on behalf of the other taxpayers of this nation. Until recently, courts have given strong indications that we should not try to recover where liability is in dispute. I repeat that this was supported by the opinion of senior counsel. For example, the Acting Chief Justice of the High Court in one court case said: I was informed that it is a somewhat unusual course for the Deputy Commissioner to commence proceedings for recovery in a court relying on a notice of assessment which is under challenge in proceedings under Part V of the Assessment Act. It is to be hoped that this is so. The institution of proceedings for recovery on a notice of assessment which is challenged in proceedings under Part V may operate oppressively and unfairly to a taxpayer. Until recently, the thousands of tax avoidance disputes were held unresolved with tax outstanding pending court decisions in test cases. The test case program was frustrated by the taxpayers concerned pulling out on the steps of the court. Yet those people who have frustrated the collection of tax owing to revenue are being protected by the Opposition in its attitude to this Bill. The Commissioner has now embarked on a concerted effort to send all appeals to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and to the courts. In 1985-86, 52,774 cases were sent on and the objective is to send on something like 40,000 more cases in the current year. The honourable member for Mackellar next suggested that in 1922 the Parliament determined that the Commissioner should be subject to the statute of limitations on the recovery of tax. But that is not the whole story. The omission in 1922 of the provision exempting the Commissioner of Taxation from the statute of limitations did no more, as a matter of law, than to leave the rules concerning the recovery of tax debts to be determined according to general legal principles. However, in 1941, the Parliament, in enacting the Gift Duty Assessment Act, took the opposite view. That Bill was introduced in October 1941, three weeks after the fall of the Fadden Government, and was passed unopposed by members of the Country Party-United Australia Party Coalition, the forerunners of the Liberal Party of Australia, which changes its name and has crises every few years. Indeed, it was opposed by those who make up the present Opposition. Mr Carlton —Come off it. That is a load of nonsense and also it is not part of the legislation. Mr HURFORD —I said that they were the forerunners of those opposite. Section 30 of the Gift Duty Assessment Act provides that, in recovering gift duty, the Commissioner of Taxation is not bound by the statute of limitations. It can therefore be said that over the intervening period the view of the Parliament as to the application of the statute of limitations to the recovery of tax debts changed. I turn lastly to the contribution, which was a very unworthy contribution, of the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). It was unworthy in the way that he attacked officers of the Taxation Office and in the bitter approach that he took to this debate. I was sorry that I was not able to be here for the contribution of the honourable member for Mackellar but I am sure that he understands that not only do I have two portfolios at present, but also there have been several Bills before the House. I apologise for not explaining to the honourable member prior to his contribution where I would be. I have tried to be here for most of the time. But I was here for the unworthy contribution of the honourable member for North Sydney. He mainly repeated the points made by the honourable member for Mackellar as they were relayed to me. But he also suggested that my second reading speech was misleading. I totally reject that. The passage fixed upon by him was paragraph 3, which said two things-that what is being done is contrary to Supreme Court decisions and contrary to the long-held view. His view is not an objective judgment of what I sought to convey in my second reading speech. It is misleading to suggest that the passage refers to long established judicial view, as was asserted by the honourable member for North Sydney. The truth is that for many years actions taken by the Commissioner for the recovery of tax have never been challenged on the grounds that the statute of limitations applied. Only in recent years have such actions been challenged. The examples given by the honourable member for North Sydney were very recent examples. That is why we need to address this issue in this Bill. We expect the High Court to uphold our position. But, just in case it does not, it is very important, particularly at a time when such schemes that were allowed to flourish during the Fraser Government years are being addressed in the Australian Taxation Office, that the principles in this Bill be upheld. Governments and taxpayers alike have until quite recently accepted that statute of limitations did not apply to collection of tax debts notwithstanding the legislative history of 1922. The Government rejects the amendment and I ask the House to support the Bill. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Carlton'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. Jenkins, H. A. Beazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J. Beddall, D. P. Kent, L. Bilney, G. N. Keogh, L. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C. Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E. Bowen, Lionel Langmore, J. V. Brown, Robert Lee, M. Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J. Campbell, G. McHugh, J. Charles, D. E. Maher, M. J. Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P. Cohen, B. Mayer, H. Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P. Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterEdwards, Ronald Mountford, J. G. Fatin, W. F. O'Keefe, N. P. Fitzgibbon, E. J. O'Neil, L. R. T. Free, R. V. Price, L. R. S. Gayler, J. Saunderson, J. Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D. Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L. Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W. Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H. Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R. Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E. Hollis, C. Uren, T. Howe, B. L. West, S. J. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R. Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W. Jakobsen, C. A. Young, M. J. Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B. Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S. Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J. Braithwaite, R. A. McVeigh, D. T. Brown, N. A. Miles, C. G. Burr, M. A. Millar, P. C. Cameron, Donald Nehl, G. B. Carlton, J. J. Peacock, A. S. Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R. Coleman, W. P. Reith, P. K. Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanConquest, B. J. Rocher, A. C. Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M. Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. Drummond, P. H. Shipton, R. F. Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC. Everingham, P. A. E. Slipper, P. N. Fischer, Tim Smith, W. Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J. Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W. Halverson, R. G. Watson, D. J. H. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P. Hodges, J. C. White, P. N. D. Hodgman, W. M. Lamb, A. H. Hawker, D. P. M. Dubois, S. G. Macphee, I. M. Jones, Barry Cameron, IanCleeland, P. R. Adermann, A. E. Punch, G. F. Jull, D. F. Keating, P. J. Wilson, I. B. C. Jacobi, R. MacKellar, M. J. R. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 49 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H., A. Beazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J. Beddall, D. P. Kent, L. Bilney, G. N. Keogh, L. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C. Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E. Bowen, Lionel Langmore, J. V. Brown, Robert Lee, M. Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J. Campbell, G. McHugh, J. Charles, D. E. Maher, M. J. Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P. Cohen, B. Mayer, H. Cross, M. D. (Teller) Mildren, J. B. Cunningham, B. T. Milton, P. Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterEdwards, Ronald Mountford, J. G. Fatin, W. F. O'Keefe, N. P. Fitzgibbon, E. J. O'Neil, L. R. T. Free, R. V. Price, L. R. S. Gayler, J. Saunderson, J. Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D. Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L. Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W. Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H. Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R. Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E. Hollis, C. Uren, T. Howe, B. L. West, S. J. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R. Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W. Jakobsen, C. A. Young, M. J. Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B. Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S. Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J. Braithwaite, R. A. McVeigh, D. T. Brown, N. A. Miles, C. G. Burr, M. A. Millar, P. C. Cameron, Donald Nehl, G. B. Carlton, J. J. Peacock, A. S. Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R. Coleman, W. P. Reith, P. K. Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanConquest, B. J. Rocher, A. C. Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M. Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. Drummond, P. H. Shipton, R. F. Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC. Everingham, P. A. E. Slipper, P. N. Fischer, Tim Smith, W. Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J. Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W. Halverson, R. G. Watson, D. J. H. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P. Hodges, J. C. White, P. N. D. Hodgman, W. M. Lamb, A. H. Hawker, D. P. M. Dubois, S. G. Macphee, I. M. Jones, Barry Cameron, IanCleeland, P. R. Adermann, A. E. Punch, G. F. Jull, D. F. Keating, P. J. Wilson, I. B. C. Jacobi, R. MacKellar, M. J. R. Question so 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. Mr Tim Fischer-Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise under standing order 310 relating to any stranger who, having been admitted into any other part of the House or gallery, misconducts himself. You would be aware that during the debate that has now been completed an illegal photograph was taken from a downstairs gallery. Whilst not wishing to embarrass unduly the visiting person involved, because of security and other implications I ask that you advise the House what action has been taken in respect of that incident. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I can tell the House that I understand that the person was an overseas visitor. He has now been advised that the taking of photographs from the galleries is not allowed without permission of the office of the Serjeant-at-Arms. Appropriate action has been taken. Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation)(6.44) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend four Commonwealth Acts to enable Australia to implement a number of anti-pollution initiatives and to improve aspects of the existing legislation. The Bill represents a further major step in marine pollution prevention and control in Australia. Honourable members will be aware that the Government is committed to ensuring Australia's acceptance of conventions which have benefits for Australia and which will enhance our reputation internationally. Accordingly, our national transport policy supports the promotion, conclusion, ratification and application of transport conventions under the auspices of the United Nations and its specialised agencies, in particular the International Maritime Organisation, IMO. Since coming into office, the Hawke Government has demonstrated an active participation in the work of IMO. This is illustrated by Australia becoming a party to the following conventions: International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 1974 and its 1978 protocol, entered into force for Australia in 1983; the 1983 amendment to the International Convention on Load Lines 1966, entered into force for Australia in 1984; the International Convention relating to Intervention on the High Seas in cases of Oil Pollution Casualties 1969 and the protocol relating to intervention on the high seas in cases of pollution by substances other than oil 1973, entered into force for Australia in 1983; the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1969 and its 1976 protocol, entered into force for Australia in 1983; the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers 1978, entered into force for Australia in 1983; the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue 1979, entered into force for Australia in 1983; and the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter 1972, entered into force for Australia in 1985. As an island nation, Australia, with its extensive coastline and spread of territorial waters, possesses national assets of immense economic and recreational worth. Accordingly it is of fundamental importance that we face up to our responsibility and ensure that we continue to provide a high level of protection for our marine environment. I believe this Bill has the capacity to further improve marine environment protection by prohibiting the discharge of harmful substances into the sea. It is incremental to and consistent with the approach taken by this Government towards the marine environment on previous occasions. The Bill currently before the House contains amendments to the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 and the Navigation Act 1912, which will enable Australia to implement annexes III, IV and V of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973, or MARPOL, as it is commonly known. This will place Australia in a position to exercise control over the discharge of ship sourced pollutants of all types. MARPOL, as the 1973 Convention and its 1978 protocol are commonly known, is a significant departure from previous pollution conventions, as the one treaty addresses ship sourced pollution in all the various forms. Australia signed the Convention, subject to ratification, in 1973. Contracting states to MARPOL are obliged to apply annexes I and II, which deal with oil and noxious liquid substances respectively. Annexes III, IV and V are optional and respectively deal with pollution by harmful substances carried in packaged form, sewage and garbage. Legislation to bring annexes I and II of the Convention into force was passed by Federal Parliament in the autumn sittings of 1983, with bipartisan support. Amending legislation extending the operation of the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act to include all ships in the Australian territorial sea and coastal waters also received bipartisan support and was passed in the autumn sittings 1986. The current Bill will enable Australia to implement fully the remaining requirements of this Convention. I should point out that MARPOL annexes III, IV and V will be implemented by way of complementary State, Commonwealth and Territory legislation in accordance with an agreement reached by the Ministers on the Australian Transport Advisory Council, ATAC, and endorsed by the Government. The annexes, therefore, will be accepted by Australia when all the necessary legislation is enacted by all governments, and they will enter into force for Australia when the annexes enter into force internationally. Annexes III, IV and V of MARPOL will each enter into force internationally 12 months after the date on which a minimum number of 15 states, with not less than 50 per cent of the gross tonnage of the world's merchant shipping, become party to them. Although these conditions have not yet been fulfilled, progress is being made and annexes III and V are expected to enter into force within the next 18 months. There is not as much international support for annex IV, which could result in its entry into force being less certain. I will briefly summarise the contents of annexes III, IV and V. Annex III contains regulations for the prevention of pollution by harmful substances carried by sea in packaged forms, or in freight containers, portable tanks or road and rail tank wagons. The annex contains specific requirements relating to the packaging and carriage of such substances. Discharges by jettisoning of harmful substances are totally prohibited except where safety of life or the ship is involved. The master or the owner of a ship is required to notify the appropriate authority at least 24 hours prior to loading or unloading such substances. To assist with the implementation of these requirements internationally, the international maritime dangerous goods code is being revised to cover pollution aspects. I believe that the evolutionary change of attitudes to environment protection is reflected in this Bill. With the introduction of these amendments, paragraph (C) of section 250 of the Navigation Act 1912, inserted in 1912, will now be removed. This provision authorised the master of a ship to throw overboard any dangerous goods shipped without his knowledge and specifically exempted such a master from any liability whatsoever. Annex IV of the Convention contains regulations for the prevention of pollution by sewage from ships, and applies to all ships over 200 gross tons or those certified to carry more than 10 persons. All discharges of sewage from Australian ships are prohibited, except under conditions specified in the Bill. No discharges are permitted within the Great Barrier Reef area. In addition to the discharge requirements, annex IV contains requirements relating to periodical surveys and the issue of an international sewage prevention certificate. Valid certificates must be carried on board a ship and be produced when a ship applies for clearance to leave an Australian port. Annex V contains regulations for the prevention of pollution by garbage. The complete prohibition placed on the disposal into the sea of plastics, including synthetic ropes and fishing nets, is a feature of this annex. Additionally, specific minimum distances have been set for the disposal of the principal types of garbage, including dunnage. The permissible degree of discharge is directly related to the degradability of the waste. Again, disposal of garbage in the Great Barrier Reef area is prohibited. I believe that a significant effect of this annex will be a reduction in the quantity of litter and waste material which washes up onto our beaches and coastline. From experience in my own constituency I know that the beaches in New South Wales on occasions suffer this problem. No doubt you too, Mr Deputy Speaker, have experienced this. The cleanliness of Australian beaches should be enhanced as a result of this legislation. Additionally, there have been complaints from the fishing industry concerning the problems caused by the disposal of garbage at sea; in particular, concern regarding the fouling and consequent damage of fishing nets. For these reasons, I believe the controls proposed by this Bill will be welcomed by all concerned. The introduction of these new controls into Commonwealth legislation is based on the legislative arrangements recommended by the Australian Transport Advisory Council, which requires that complementary Commonwealth, State and Northern Territory legislation be enacted before Australia can ratify annexes III, IV and V of MARPOL. The proposal is therefore in accordance with long standing arrangements between the Commonwealth, States and Northern Territory for control of ship sourced pollution. A second aim of the Bill is to update existing legislation to reflect the 1985 amendments to annex II and protocol I of the MARPOL Convention. These were adopted by the International Maritime Organisation in December 1985 and have also been endorsed by the Australian Transport Advisory Council. Annex II deals with the prevention of pollution by noxious liquid substances carried in bulk. These amendments will enter into force internationally on 6 April 1987. They are the result of general agreement that the original provisions of annex II, developed in the early 1970s, needed revision to take account of subsequent technical developments. The amendments are recognised by shipping and pollution specialists in government and the shipping and chemical industries as being more in tune with actual conditions encountered aboard chemical tankers than were the original annex II provisions. Additionally, they are designed to make annex II easier for administrations to implement, as the need for on-shore facilities for the reception of chemical wastes is reduced. The amendments to protocol I of MARPOL incorporate new comprehensive mandatory incident reporting requirements. These new pollution reporting obligations and the accompanying guidelines are designed to speed communication, enabling authorities to respond quickly and to be better informed in the event of actual or potential accidental spillages, cargo losses and illegal discharges. The simplification and standardisation of ship reporting principles and procedures were the major aims of the protocol I revision and have consistently been supported by Australia at International Maritime Organisation meetings. The standardised procedures will avoid the confusion caused by the variety of reporting requirements, imposed by individual authorities, as ships move from one area to another. As on previous occasions during the development of MARPOL, Australia has argued strongly for the special protection measures to safeguard the Great Barrier Reef region. Special recognition of this unique area is contained in the Convention. This level of protection is maintained in the proposed amendments, which specifically prohibit discharges of chemicals, sewage and garbage in the Reef region. The third function of the Bill is to enable Australia to implement the 1984 protocol to the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1969. The Convention is implemented in Australia by the Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability) Act 1981, which entered into force on 5 February 1984 and will be amended by this Bill. The `polluter pays' concept, contained in the Convention and the new protocol, is designed to ensure that compensation is available to those suffering oil pollution damage as a result of maritime casualties. Owners of ships carrying more than 2,000 tonnes of oil are required to maintain insurance or other financial security against the risk of such an eventuality. The 1984 protocol amending the civil liability convention was developed to overcome the adverse effects of inflation on the real values of the limits of liability. The protocol adopts a minimum for vessels of less than 5,000 gross tons of three million special drawing rights, as defined by the International Monetary Fund. This is equivalent to approximately $A5.8m. For larger vessels, liability is calculated on the basis of the vessel's tonnage, with an overall maximum for the ship's liability of 59.7 million SDRs, or $A114.5m. As an example, a tanker of 39,000 gross tons which is insured to a limit of $A10.35m under existing legislation will be required to be insured under the 1984 protocol to a limit of $A33.5m. This reflects a threefold rise in the real value of the level of compensation available and will ensure that the damage that such a ship can cause will be more effectively compensated. Other amendments effected by the 1984 protocol include extension of the geographic scope of the Convention to cover incidents occurring in the 200-mile zone. This will afford additional protection to sensitive areas such as the Great Barrier Reef and safeguard existing and potential fisheries in the Australian fishing zone. The scope of the legislation will also be extended as tankers in ballast and combination carriers are now included in the Convention coverage. Extensive consultations between Federal and State officials resulted in agreement on adoption of the protocol. This was accepted and has been recommended by ATAC Ministers. The text of the protocol has been discussed with industry groups representing insurers, shipowners and cargo interests, and no objections have been raised. Although the benefits to a coastal state of the expanded scope and increased limits provided by the protocol are readily apparent, the additional costs are extremely difficult to predict. Shipowners will have to arrange increased insurance cover. However, the nature of shipping insurance, which is provided largely by protection and indemnity clubs on a mutual indemnity basis, makes it impossible to predict the cost involved. Furthermore, whether a cost increase would be reflected in increased freight rates and charges in the existing highly competitive international freight market is far from certain. Finally, the Bill will align references to the tonnage of ships in the Protection of the Sea (Shipping Levy Collection) Act 1981 with the International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships 1969. Australia is already a party to this Convention, which entered into force in 1982. The absolute tonnages of certain types of ships for levy purposes will undergo substantial variation following the determination of new tonnages under the 1969 Convention, although existing ships are not required to be remeasured for tonnage purposes until 1994. In the intervening period an owner may opt to measure a ship under the Convention or by the traditional method embodied in the Navigation (Tonnage Measurement) Regulations. The amendment proposed by the Bill will compensate for the variation between each measurement regime and cater for ships whose tonnage has been calculated under either regime. I believe the amendments contained in the Bill will result in substantial improvement in both the control of ship sourced pollution and compensation available for damage caused by a pollution incident, and will maintain Australia's position in the international forefront in the field or marine pollution convention implementation. I commend the Bill to honourable members and I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Debate resumed from 24 September, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(7.03) —The States (Works and Housing) Assistance Amendment Bill seeks to amend the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Act 1985 to give effect to certain arrangements agreed at the Loan Council meeting held on 13 June 1986. Those arrangements include the payment of $429m of interest free capital grants to the States as part of the 1986-87 State governments' Loan Council programs, the pre-payment of $215m of similar grants from the 1987-88 program, pending passage of similar legislation in that year, and the alteration of the amount the States and the Northern Territory may nominate from their approved borrowing programs for public housing in 1986-87. While the Opposition will not oppose this Bill, it has an amendment. I move: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not opposing the provisions of the Bill, the House condemns the Government for pursuing incompetent economic and tax policies which- (a) have resulted in a continuing high level of interest rates, and (b) have reduced the incentive for private investors to put funds into the private rental market by the imposition of the iniquitous capital gains tax and the removal of negative gearing provisions'. The reason we have moved that amendment is that the Government's economic policies have failed. We have an unbelievable situation in which the Treasurer (Mr Keating) is swanning around the world telling other Western countries how much better our economic performance has been than theirs. He has been doing this at a time when, under his stewardship, we have had the greatest fall in the value of our currency in our history. Our currency has gone down from around US90c 18 months ago to around US60c today. Our currency devaluation has been even more severe against the average of our trading partners, against the trade weighted index. At the same time, real interest rates in Australia are several times higher than those of our trading partners-- Mr Hodgman —The worst since the Depression. Mr BEALE —As my colleague the honourable member for Denison says, they are the worst since the Depression and the Government is trying to obscure the situation by pretending that real interest rates are not so bad when compared with nominal interest rates. While our nominal interest rates are around double the average of our trading partners, our real interest rates are very much higher. The Treasurer has been telling the world how much better we have been doing when we have a balance of payments crisis. Incredibly that crisis was identified by the Treasurer's Papers in the last Budget-not the current Budget, but the last one-and even the Government has now recognised this. We are losing around $1.25 billion a month in the excess of imports over exports. We have the highest level of taxes in Australia in our peacetime history. We have an inflation rate that is several times higher than those of our trading partners. Inflation is around 8 per cent in Australia. It is perhaps one per cent in Japan and 3 per cent in the United States of America. Can honourable members believe the Treasurer, running around the world telling other countries how much better we have been doing than they have, while all this is going on? In Australia unemployment is trending upwards, while unemployment in the economies of our major trading partners is trending downwards. Unemployment in Australia is still at 8 per cent, with youth unemployment at a shocking level of 22 per cent. I am delighted to see that the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) has arrived in the House. He will be pleased to know that I have not got to him yet. I have moved an amendment that deals, firstly, with the difficulties of the economy as a whole and, secondly, with the difficulties in the housing market to which I will come in due course. Under the stewardship of the Treasurer we have a tax regime that has encumbered Australians with the most complex and discordant legislation, particularly in the fringe benefits and capital gains tax areas. Mr Hodgman —It is the worst in the world. Mr BEALE —I would be very surprised if there were another tax regime anywhere in the Western world that was so complicated, difficult to understand, suspect and susceptible to unintended consequences-the current in phrase. That is particularly so with this extraordinary fringe benefits tax. We in the Opposition have been telling the Government for weeks and months that the fringe benefits tax was discriminatory, that it produced a whole series of unintended consequences, as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) now acknowledges, that it would be difficult to administer and that it would impose intolerable burdens on low income earners. Examples of the last point abound and we in the Opposition have been telling the Government this for weeks and weeks. Yesterday and today in Question Time, by our identifying all those anomalies and unintended consequences, the Government got a feel of how extraordinarily discriminatory the fringe benefits tax is. It further diminishes the already low income of farmers through its ridiculous housing provisions. It discriminates against charities and we heard yesterday of the incredible situation with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. It discriminates against the aged. At last the Government has got the message about this tax, and the Prime Minister has announced that it will be reviewed. It will be reviewed, perhaps, by this Government, but as far as the coalition is concerned, in government we will throw out the fringe benefits tax lock, stock and barrel. Government economic policies are wrong. There have been no real cuts in government expenditure despite the extraordinary beat-up that the Treasurer conducted prior to bringing down his Budget. We had increases in taxes in the Budget. The tax on milk was increased, as it was on citrus products, and the tax on petrol was increased yet again. As import parity prices were coming down, the Government took back most of the benefit that should have been passed on to motorists by increasing the excise on petrol. As the import parity price has increased again, the Government has taken all of the increase through its crude oil levy. In the Budget, as I have said, we had yet another increase in the excise on petrol. Our friends from Tasmania have been hit especially hard. Mr Hodgman —Daylight robbery. Mr BEALE —As the honourable member says, it is daylight robbery. The Government had its economic policy wrong because interest rates are still far too high to encourage the necessary investment. This has resulted in an economic slow-down. The difficulties that are seen in the economy are reflected in the significantly slower growth rate that is identified in the Budget Papers. There is hardly an economic commentator who does not think that the numbers are rubbery and that the growth rate is likely to be significantly slower than that which has been predicted. The Government's economic policies are wrong because personal income taxes are still far too high. We heard the Acting Treasurer (Mr Hurford) trumpeting today about what was happening to personal income tax in Australia. When we compare the personal income tax regime in Australia with what is happening in the United States, it is clear that we still have a great deal of distance to cover before we can create a personal tax regime that has some real meaning and will restore incentive and reward for effort. The United States is incorporating a personal tax regime of 15 per cent up to a certain level of income and 28 per cent beyond that. Mr Hodgman —How much? Mr BEALE —The top level will be 28 per cent. Furthermore, government debt is still growing. We had all the trumpeting before the Budget about how the Government would reduce the deficit, but this year it is still $3.5 billion. That means that the interest on that sum has to be paid every year. This $3.5 billion has to be added to our internal debt and our children will have to pay the interest on it. Furthermore, government policies are failing because consumption is still growing at a faster rate than that of production. The Government's wages policy is in disarray. Does anyone really know where we are going with the Government wages policy? We read that accord mark 2 has finished and that negotiations are taking place on accord mark 3. It is unclear how we shall end up with the introduction of accord mark 3. We do not know whether we shall have a two-tier or a three-tier system, or a productivity system. The Government trumpeted accord mark 1 and said that it would never be changed, but it was changed to accord mark 2 and now, apparently, it is to move to accord mark 3. Finally, the Government's policies are failing because our overseas debt is continuing to rise, putting further pressure on the productive sector and increasing inflationary pressures in our community. The overseas debt is around $85 billion. Mr Hodgman —We are bankrupt. Mr BEALE —It is worsening by $1.25 billion a month. The Budget Papers admit that it will increase by $14 billion this year. As my colleague says, we are bankrupt. I could not think of a better way to describe the position. Any person who runs his affairs so that he finds himself in debt to the extent of Australia and allows his expenditure to exceed his income is certainly bankrupt. Debate interrupted. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 7.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(7.15) —The issue that I wish to raise is the treatment of the elderly by this Government. I refer specifically to the case of an 83-year-old, Mrs Mary Vearing, of Bardon, a suburb of Brisbane. Mrs Vearing is a double amputee, having lost both legs as a result of diabetes. She has been a war widow since 1964. Her late husband served in World War I, during which he was gassed. He served in World War II and spent three to four years as a prisoner of war of the Japanese near Osaka. I guess it could be said that he made his contribution to Australia well and truly and that he died expecting his widow to be well cared for. For nearly two years Mrs Vearing has been entitled to receive eight hours of home nursing per day on the authority of the Repatriation General Hospital at Greenslopes, which is in my electorate, and that of her local medical officer. Until about March, only about four hours of the eight hours a day entitlement was being utilised. The nurses called daily between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. and they went beyond that four hour period only if there was some special reason, such as a doctor's appointment or some particular periodic treatment that they had to give her which was not an everyday occurrence. It is only since March that they have utilised the full eight hours to which Mrs Vearing is entitled. That is because of the deterioration in her health. Originally, there was notification that Mrs Vearing's care entitlement would be reduced from eight hours to four hours as a result of the changes that the Government was introducing. Those concerned have now been told that it will be only three hours effective from next Monday, 13 October. Mr Hodgman —How many hours? Mr DONALD CAMERON —The nursing will be reduced to three hours. As things stand, a St Luke's nurse will be calling at 1 p.m. each day. She will give Mrs Vearing her lunch and put her to bed. This will be in addition to the 8.30 to 10.30 domiciliary call in the morning. Once she goes to bed, she is confined there until a nurse comes again under government entitlement for just one lousy hour in the evening. During that one hour the nurse is supposed to perform the following functions-I ask the House to remember that these functions have to be carried out in one hour. Prepare the evening meal and get Mrs Vearing to the table; prepare supper to be left with Mrs Vearing beside her bed; clean up after the evening meal and the preparation of the supper; and attend to Mrs Vearing's pressure areas. The diabetes means that there are continuing areas of pressure. I had an uncle who suffered from diabetes and had both his legs amputated; so I know a little bit about the condition from which Mrs Vearing is suffering. There are two more functions which the nurse is supposed to perform, namely, to change dressings and dispense medication, and to ensure that Mrs Vearing has been to the bathroom, a humane thing to do. I understand that the Government has found that the provision of nursing has been ripped off in the past, but once again it has taken a sledge hammer to the nut and is smashing it to smithereens. An unfortunate trend that has developed under this Government is that veterans are always the victims. The Veterans' Entitlements Bill had to be fought in the chamber and in the Senate. It was stopped in the Senate by a combination of Liberals, Nationals and Democrats. Once again, the Government is taking a fairly calculating approach. It is a cold, calculating approach. Mr Hodgman —It is cruel. Mr DONALD CAMERON —As the honourable member says, it borders on the cruel. If the Budget has to be balanced, for heaven's sake let it not be done at the expense of veterans. I do not mind the Government stamping on any ripping off that might be going on but let us bring a little humanity to these matters-- Government members interjecting- Mr DONALD CAMERON —Government members are all jumping in. If veterans could hear my speech, they would be jumping too. They would say: `There it goes again. They are into us again'. I just ask the Government to bring a little compassion, care and recognition to the fact that an 83-year-old woman and others without legs are not in a position to carry the burden of balancing this nation's Budget. Mr KENT(Hotham)(7.20) —As far back as 1963, I was the author of two leaflets revealing the existence of former war criminals in Australia. One paper dealt with the activities of the Ustasha organisation and the other with members of the Latvian SS. I accused the Menzies Government of harbouring war criminals in Australia and I called for an investigation. Now, I note with some gratification that, finally, after 23 years, the Hawke Labor Government has instituted an investigation headed by Mr Andrew Menzies. I also note with satisfaction that the Melbourne Age of 6 October, in its editorial entitled `Track down the war criminals' writes: There is no more chilling event in modern history than the persecution and slaughter of Jews in World War II, and no country should give shelter to the evil men and women who perpetrated this crime against humanity. They and their offences should not be forgotten just because time has passed. They should be tracked down for two reasons: First, justice demands that people guilty of such crimes be brought to justice, even decades after the events; and second, the relentless pursuit of war criminals should act as a constant reminder to younger generations of the atrocities committed against Jews and others less than 50 years ago. Australia was geographically far removed from the works of the Nazis, but that in no way diminishes our moral obligation to ensure that Nazi war criminals here are made to account for their actions. But while the Age and other papers are calling for action against the nazis and quisling war criminals, the `uglies' are active also. Senator Peter Baume has been threatened by Ljenko Urbancic, one of the former collaborators and nazi propagandists, that he will lose his preselection if he continues his attacks on former war criminals. And while Mr Menzies carries on with his secret inquiries, Croat extremists are disseminating despicable anti-Semitic material. Here is part of the first paragraph of a leaflet sent anonymously to an ethnic welfare organisation. It reads: US Press suppresses photo of Canadian's sacrifice for Artukovic A picture worth 1,000 words This photo was banned in America-Why??? Marko Djukic, 63, was among 2,000 Croatian patriots demonstrating outside the US Consulate in Toronto, Canada. They were protesting the outrageous deportation of 86 year old Andrija Artukovic to Yugoslavia where he is now on trial as a `war criminal'. America has joined in collusion with Jews and communists to deport anti- communist Christian patriots to Red countries and Israel. Andrija Artukovic was the patriotic, Christian gentleman responsible for the deaths of more than a million people and was the Interior Minister in the nazi puppet state of Croatia during 1941 and 1945. Let me also mention another excerpt from a journal, if one can call it that, which arrived under separate cover on the same day at the same welfare organisation. The headline reads: The sooner the better-polarization and confrontation-the Jew contrives to delay it until the white race is too weak and degenerate to fight back before closing in on the kill. I do not think that we can discard these writings as being merely the actions of lunatics. I have seen similar propaganda, the products of minds like those of Ljenko Urbancic and Dr Goebbels, some decades ago. I remember many saying then that they are the words of lunatics and should not be taken seriously. Many of those who did not take the nazi lunatics seriously 50 years ago paid with their lives for believing that the nazi racist threats could not be carried out in modern times. Alas, they did not know that they were facing not only lunatics but well-organised barbarism of the worst kind in human history. I think that it is time that Mr Menzies revealed the product of his investigation-brought it out into the open-so that it can be scrutinised publicly and we can ensure that no attempt is made to whitewash. Such an attempt would only give a further lease of life to the extremists who may yet, if uncontrolled, turn their racist propaganda into barbaric killings in the future, as they have done in the past. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(7.25) —I wish to use the adjournment debate tonight, firstly, to pay tribute to two footballers of that great code, rugby league, who have been selected to play in the Australian football team in its tour of the British Isles later this year. The two footballers not only come from the electorate of Dawson, but come from a small township in that electorate. That would probably be a record from the point of view of having two players selected for such a prestigious tour. The Government may be interested to know that the town that supplied the footballers, Sarina, was a town in which the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) served for a time as a policeman. I am sure that he would wish to express his congratulations to the footballers on this occasion. One of the footballers is Dale Shearer. His father is a teacher at the primary school in Sarina. Dale has represented Sarina, and particularly the Mackay area, in a whole series of athletic and sporting events, more recently football. He would be known to those who follow football as one of the star wingers and star backs of the Sydney league. It only goes to show that the selectors have to fleece and pinch from country Australia the best footballers for the Sydney league. That is obvious. The other footballer, Martin Bella, is also a member of the Sydney league. He is a forward whose father is a cane farmer in the Mackay area. I know young Martin well. He played junior league football at the time my lads were in the Mackay competition. He always showed amazing ability as a forward and was always dedicated to the code that he now so successfully represents. I assure both the Sarina players that they go to the international competition with the very best wishes of all the constituents of Dawson, particularly of Mackay and Sarina. I am sure that all Queenslanders hope that, with the formidable combination of Wally Lewis, the man who leads the football team, they will come back with the ashes of football. I offer my congratulations on their selection. Secondly, I give thanks to the Government and the Ministers involved for the final approval and agreement for the relocation of the historic Pine Island lighthouse. I call it historic because it is one of those lighthouses that have serviced the Barrier Reef area for over 100 years. It is the last kerosene-operated lighthouse. On my information, it was to go to the maritime museum in Sydney but, because of representations from the electorate of Dawson, and especially from those who live on the on-shore area adjacent to the lighthouse-over 10,000 petitioners-and members of the Mackay archaeological museum and community leaders, and especially because of some of the best investigative journalism I have seen in my 11 years of representation-I refer to a radio journalist at 4MK, Glen Cox-a successful public reaction was mounted against removing the lighthouse to an entirely unsuitable place for an historic monument is to Sydney, and it is to be brought back to Mackay. I thank the Ministers for finally changing their minds. I particularly thank the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren), who stated categorically that he felt, even when the matter was in dispute, that it was ridiculous that the lighthouse should go to anywhere but the adjacent area. I pay my sincere tribute tonight to the Minister. One thing that is still lacking in that regard is that, while the lighthouse is destined to go to the on-shore area, there are still some problems. The major problem is that the Department of Transport apparently wants to retain the lens of the lighthouse and not have it removed together with the balance. Without the lens, the kerosene operated lighthouse is like a plum pudding without the fruit or, probably more up to date, it is like Crocodile Dundee without Paul Hogan. I believe that the Government is under an obligation to keep the lighthouse intact. I think every member of the Government and the Opposition will realise that it has to be complete. If there is any doubt, I ask the Government to consider the lens as part of the parcel. I thank all those concerned. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(7.30) —My attention has just been drawn to an anonymous document headed `Mr Hollis' grievance' which mentions a grievance speech that I made on 22 May. It states: . . . Mr Colin Hollis, the M.P. for Throsby in N.S.W. returned to what has now become almost his whole activity in Parliament-the defence of the Sri Lankan Tamil separatists. Let me nail that one. Today's House of Representatives Daily Hansard contains an index which lists 19 entries under my name. Of those 19 entries, only one refers to Sri Lanka or the Tamils. So much for that. The document continues: For a full ten minutes he spoke on this topic repeating the misrepresentations on the Sri Lanka problem with which that august assembly had been regaled several times. That these lies had been exploded several times does not seem to bother him; he repeats them as if they were gospel truth! It is amazing that if a person does not agree with another he is accused of telling lies. I call on the Sri Lanka authorities to allow international bodies to go to verify what has happened. If the International Red Cross were allowed to go in we would soon find out whether I was telling lies or not. I treat anonymous documents-this is an anonymous document-as I treat anonymous telephone calls, with the contempt they deserve. Although it is an anonymous document, the typeface and the print is precisely the same as a letter I received last week from the Sri Lankan High Commission in Canberra. That was not the matter I was going to speak on this evening. In an article in the Canberra Times on 15 September, the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) is reported as saying: Australia's foreign aid program had become uncompassionate and a bizarre waste . . . I found these comments from the honourable member out of character as he is one of the few members on the Opposition benches who show an understanding of foreign policy. He continued: It is really sickening that while humanitarian aid is being cut back, the Labor Government's funding of UNESCO is up a massive 125 per cent and its contribution to the International Labor Organisation is up 12.5 per cent . . . The only contribution UNESCO or the ILO are ever likely to make to assist the world's disadvantaged is to hold an international conference in Paris or Geneva or some other desirable holiday spot. I would expect such a statement from some members of the National Party of Australia, but not from the honourable member for Mayo. The honourable member alleges that the Government has increased Australia's financial contribution to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation by 125 per cent. A simple inquiry of the Department of Foreign Affairs would have shown this to be misleading. Australia's contribution to UNESCO in recent years has been 1.64 per cent of UNESCO's budget. Variations in Federal Budget allocations between this year and the previous year are the result of credits allowed to Australia because of currency fluctuations over the years 1981 to 1983 and a small Budget surplus over the period 1973 to 1983. It is, indeed, unfortunate that in these times of economic restraint Australia is not able to contribute more to UNESCO's programs, particularly as they relate to education and the development of technological competence in the Third World. The suggestion of the honourable member for Mayo that the only contribution UNESCO is ever likely to make to the world's disadvantaged is to hold a conference in Paris or some other desirable holiday spot only demonstrates the inadequacy of his intellectual process. In fact, I would have thought that his own professional experience as a junior foreign affairs officer might have led him to a different conclusion. UNESCO has significantly contributed to improving the lot of the world's disadvantaged. His suggestion that alleged waste in UNESCO was the cause of the United States of America and British withdrawal is also far from the truth. UNESCO is a federation of some 160 member states. Many experienced UNESCO observers suggest that the governments of Britain and the United States of America withdrew their support from UNESCO because they were unable to reconcile some of the programs approved by the remaining 158 members with their current political and ideological approaches to peace, human rights and the free flow of information. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(7.35) —I wish to refer to the cost of running our present nursing homes for the aged. I am very concerned about this matter because the electorate of Lyne contains quite a few community nursing homes and private nursing homes which fulfil a very great demand within the community. Recently we have seen an increase in costs as a result of changes in the State awards for nurses. At the moment nurses work a 38-hour week and have a free day every fortnight. This, in turn, has caused very substantial increased costs for nursing homes. I bring this matter to the attention of the House because I feel that the Government should come to the aid of the people who are affected by this new increase. The Bonventi nursing home is situated in the Tuncurry area of the electorate of Lyne. This 80-bed nursing home is the only one in that part of the State. I am concerned because quite a lot of patients in the nursing home are pensioners. As honourable members will be aware, private nursing homes naturally do not receive a capital building grant. The homes are regarded as an investment and the owners must pay a reason- able dividend to those who have invested capital. When the home was opened a year or so ago there was a very great demand for the beds available. There was no difficulty in filling all 80 beds in a short period. We now find that because of the general overall increases in costs it is necessary for the owners to increase the fees. Practically all of the patients in the home are pensioners and as such 87 1/2 per cent of their pension goes towards paying the fee. The patients depend on their relatives to pay the extra cost. There is nothing wrong with that, but the fact of the matter is that very often the relatives are pensioners themselves and are just not able to meet the extra costs involved. I am presently making representations to the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) and asking that consideration be given for the Commonwealth to make extra funds available in order to relieve the situation. We are all aware of this problem because we have community nursing homes in our electorates that are initiated by groups within the community. These groups normally receive two-thirds of the funding needed to erect buildings and then operate on deficit funding. They are able to carry on in a reasonable way because the Commonwealth can automatically make up any reason- able extra costs that are involved. Whilst these types of nursing homes are also established within my electorate and are certainly playing a wonderful role, particularly in the Taree area, the private nursing homes are filling the gap left by them. I wish to stress the point that there is a very great need for the Commonwealth to come to the aid generally of these private nursing homes because of the fact that often people are not always in a position to support the patients. Nursing homes, particularly in our part of Australia along the coast where the aged people retire, are very necessary indeed. So I appeal to the Minister to come to the assistance of the people concerned. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(7.40) —I wish to raise tonight a matter that I think is of relevance to all members of the Parliament, but particularly to honourable members who are on the back benches, including those who sit opposite. I think that all of us have common ground in arguing for a proposition that I seek to advance tonight; that is, for a very substantial extension of the parliamentary committee system. Having consulted a dictionary, I have relearned that democracy is about government by the people or by their elected representatives. The fact of the matter is that, although we have a parliamentary democracy in this country that is a country mile ahead of many other forms of government around the world, it is nevertheless not an infallible system. It is a system which can be improved. I would like to suggest tonight a very specific way in which the system can be so improved. The problem is that, although we have government by the elected representatives of the people, it is an ever diminishing number of elected representatives who are charged with, and who have the direct power and influence in, shaping this country's destiny. I stress that what I am referring to has no direct bearing on any one party, because it is the system that is at fault. It is deficient, I believe, both under Labor administration and under Liberal-National Party coalition administration. The Cabinet, of course, in our system of government has, as it has in other parliamentary democracies, gained such power and influence that I know that there are people on the back bench opposite and, indeed, in other parties as well who have actually said that they learn more about what the Government is doing by reading the columns of the daily newspapers than they do by attending this very important and purportedly premier chamber of parliamentary democracy in Australia. Of course, it is not only the power of the Cabinet which has increased in this way; the power of the bureaucracy has also increased. Those who administer the Public Service have become so very powerful as to make the efforts of the elected representatives of the people often almost irrelevant to the processes of government. I think I should retell a story that was once told to me to demonstrate the attitudes or state of mind of some of the senior bureaucrats of government departments in this country. When the former Minister for Urban and Regional Development, now the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren), was negotiating with the State of New South Wales during the period of the Whitlam Government, seeking to implement the policies of the Federal Government and bring an end to the inner city expressway program of the New South Wales Government, one very wise senior bureaucrat of the Department of Main Roads in New South Wales leaned over to the Minister and said in not so respectful terms: `Mr Uren, Ministers come and Ministers go, but the DMR goes on forever'. Sometimes I think from my experiences in the Parliament and from talking to elected members that we are often as irrelevant to those processes as some of our predecessors have been. I suggest to honourable members that no one party has a monopoly of initiatives for parliamentary reform. The Fraser Government, to its credit, implemented freedom of information legislation and, predominantly due to the efforts of people in my Party, there has been a very great expansion of the committee system in the Senate. What we do not have, and what I think we should have, in the House of Representatives is a developed committee system such as that which exists in the United Kingdom House of Commons. I would direct honourable members to a paper prepared by the Department of the House of Representatives entitled `Extension of the Committee System'. It is a theme I intend to return to when the opportunity arises in an adjournment debate. I wish to continue to explore these issues. I conclude by saying that our parliamentary democracy can be improved. An expanded committee system will make the Executive Government more accountable to the Parliament and to the people. I commend the reforms to the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — I call the honourable member for the Northern Territory. Mr Goodluck —Hear, hear! Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory)(7.45) —I am extremely grateful to the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) for his support on this occasion. Mr Deputy Speaker, my two sons were in the gallery during the last week of sitting when you talked about the Sydney grand final and your hopes and praise for the Canterbury side. My eldest son said to me after I left the chamber: `Gee, Dad, that dude does not really know what he is talking about, does he, because the Eels will win for sure'. Next time you had better speak to my eldest son before you make any bets on the Sydney grand final, Mr Deputy Speaker. Last Friday the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) announced that he would grant 400 square kilometres of some of the richest mineral land on this earth to an Aboriginal group in the Northern Territory. He also announced that, although these Aboriginals would have title, this would only be on condition that they first agreed to surrender all control, all ownership rights, to a Canberra bureaucrat who runs the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. Tonight I want to talk about an Aboriginal woman, Mrs Pavalina Henwood, who before land rights came into effect worked on land that has since become Aboriginal land and which she claims is her ancestral land. Nowadays she cannot get past first base with the Northern Land Council, which is supposed to represent Aboriginal interests and which has effectively shut down her tantalite mine and prevented her from making an income. She is a real battler. She is not a big miner; she has scratched a living from the earth. Mrs Henwood was born some 40-odd years ago in the Wagait area, south-west of Darwin, an area which became Aboriginal land as soon as the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act was passed 10 years ago. As was the practice years ago, Mrs Henwood was taken from her mother as a baby and was raised on Crocker Island off the Arnhem Land coast by missionaries dedicated to what they saw as the moral and material salvation of these children. The Aboriginal Land Rights Act, as administered by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and organisations such as the Northern Land Council, has effectively dispossessed Mrs Henwood from her traditional homeland at Wagait, as well as her adopted home of Crocker Island. Under the provisions of the Land Rights Act, the Northern Land Council very quickly nominated traditional owners for Crocker Island. Those traditional owners just as quickly told the mixed blood people raised and educated on the island by the Methodist missionaries over the past 50 years or so that they had no place on the island and at best could return briefly for holidays if they obtained written permission. The NLC was not anywhere near as quick off the mark in determining the identity of traditional owners for the Wagait area, despite the fact that it is Schedule 1 Aboriginal land and that the NLC is required by section 24 of the Act to make such identification. The result is that the traditional owners of the 1,500 square kilometres of Wagait never have been officially determined. It remains the personal fiefdom of the Northern Land Council bosses and bureaucracy. Mrs Henwood, whose mother comes from Wagait country and who was born in Wagait country, believes, I think with some justification, that she is a traditional owner of that area. She is a woman of considerable initiative, imagination and persistence. She does not want a hand-out. She wants to re-establish a viable commercial undertaking on just a tiny portion of the 1,500 square kilometres of Wagait, either by way of a fishing venture or by reopening her tantalite mine. Apparently the Northern Land Council, and for that matter the Minister responsible, do not want to know about Aboriginals who chose to strike out on their own. Having tired of getting the runaround from the NLC bureaucracy, Mrs Henwood has tried every other avenue. At last count, she had approached the Northern Territory Government, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the Northern Territory Department of Mines and Energy, and the mining wardens court in Darwin. In desperation, Mrs Henwood approached the Aboriginal Legal Aid Service, but it does not seem too keen to get involved in disputes involving the Northern Land Council. She has been given the run-around by every agency she has approached that is supposed to assist Aboriginals, with the exception of the Northern Territory Government. Unfortunately, the Northern Territory Government is powerless in this matter even though the land lies within the boundaries of the Territory. The ultimate power over Wagait, as with the other half a million square kilometres of Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory, lies with the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. The Minister's track record suggests that he is not too keen on Aboriginals who leave the hand-out herd and strike out on their own, such as the people on Vandelin Island. Luckily, Mrs Henwood is not a quitter. She is now considering going out with her children to her traditional country and mining in defiance of the Northern Land Council, the Minister and the Act, which gives no rights to those Aboriginals who dare to be individuals. I, for one, wish her the best of luck. In the meantime, the Minister may care to inform this House, since he is responsible for the administration of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, firstly whether there is a responsibility on the Northern Land Council to compile and maintain a register setting out the names of persons who in the opinion of the Council are the traditional owners of Aboriginal land in the area of the land Council and, secondly, whether the NLC has, after 10 years, compiled such a register in respect of the land once known as the Wagait Reserve. If so, what are the names of the traditional owners? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(7.50) —Tonight I wish to talk about socialism. It has been said that we are all socialists now and I guess that to a large extent that is true. On this side of the House we are democratic socialists. On the other side there are the agrarian socialists who believe that there should be special subsidies for the rural sector, with which view I must say that I have some sympathy. There are also the Tasmanian socialists, of which Mr Hodgman is one- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will use the honourable member's title. Mr CAMPBELL —Yes, the honourable member for Denison. Of course, the Tasmanian socialists believe in all the tenets of a free enterprise society unless they are applied to Tasmania. Then there are those who I call the Liberal soft socialists who believe that we should capitalise all the profits and socialise all the losses. But tonight I want to talk about the national socialists. The national socialists of the New Right are the new driving force behind the Liberal Party. It was very interesting to hear in this House recent disclaimers by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and-I can never remember his name-- Mr Beale —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. The use of the phrase `national socialists' as a description of the Liberal Party is unacceptable and I ask that it be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I thought the honourable member referred to the New Right, not to the Liberal Party. Did the honourable member for Kalgoorlie refer to the Liberal Party? Mr CAMPBELL —I was very careful not to do so, Mr Deputy Speaker. I referred to the national socialists of the New Right, a group which has a disproportionate influence on the Liberal Party. Mr Deputy Speaker, I think you will find that that is well within the Standing Orders because I checked it out. However, I do not blame the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) for trying. On many occasions I find him very trying. What I was saying about the national socialists of the New Right was that they tend to have a lot of influence in the Liberal Party, although this has been disclaimed by members of the Party. It was interesting to hear the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr N. A. Brown) say that he does not subscribe to the views of the New Right; that he just supports all of its members. I guess that one must draw that distinction. At page 15 of the West Australian of Wednesday, 8 October, there is a heading `Libs clarify where they stand'. In the article the Liberal Party goes to some trouble to say that it is not influenced by the New Right but that it just endorses all of its members. But right underneath that article is another article headed `Sell Telecom, advises Hay'. Of course, Mr Hay is the absolute doyen of the New Right and he is giving advice to the Liberal Party that it should sell Telecom Australia. That is no news to this House because the Liberal Party has been on binges of privatisation, saying that it wanted to sell off Telecom and every government instrumentality. But what has to be considered is the enormous cross-subsidy provided by Telecom to people in country areas. But that does not seem to worry Mr Hay because his interests are entirely self-interests. They are the interests of a very narrow, greedy group, and they do not encompass the general welfare of Australia or the welfare of remote and rural areas of Australia. Mr Hay is very sensitive to the charge that he is a national socialist. He has even taken out a writ against Brian Powell. As honourable members would probably know, Brian Powell has a much more credible career in business than has Mr Hay. The nearest Mr Hay ever got to business was working for Sir Phillip Lynch. He would have learnt a few things there that the Corporate Affairs Commission would like to know about. Mr Hodgman —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. That is a reflection on the late Sir Phillip Lynch as well as on Mr Hay. I ask the honourable member to withdraw that very nasty reflection on both persons. Mr CAMPBELL —I am quite happy to withdraw my reflection on Sir Phillip Lynch. I have no compulsion to withdraw any reflections on Mr Hay, and I certainly do not. Mr Hay was described by Brian Powell, Chief Executive of the Australian Chamber of Manufactures- Mr Beale —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. The honourable member for Denison asked that the honourable member for Kalgoorlie withdraw the slur on both the gentlemen whom he named. He did not. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — My understanding of the Standing Orders is that an honourable member can ask another honourable member to withdraw in regard to a matter relating to another honourable member. One of the major difficulties with the Standing Orders is that there is no provision relating to people outside the House who are not part of the judiciary, the royal family or honourable senators. Does the honourable member for Deakin wish to persist with his point of order? Mr Beale —I guess I do, Mr Deputy Speaker, because the implication of what the honourable member said was that he would withdraw the slur against the late Sir Phillip Lynch but not that against Mr Hay. The honourable member for Denison specifically asked that he withdraw the comments about both gentlemen. You did not rule on that, Mr Deputy Speaker. I invite you to do so particularly in light of the fact that the honourable member withdrew the slur against the late Sir Phillip Lynch. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —My understanding of the Standing Orders is that one can take a point relating to honourable members and to other people who are classified in the Standing Orders. But, as I understand it, neither Mr Hay nor the late Sir Phillip Lynch comes within the ambit of that portion of the Standing Orders. Mr Scholes —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Mr Hodgman —Come off it! Mr Scholes —The honourable member for Denison deliberately wasted time. I am not deliberately wasting time. There is a consistent ruling in this House that persons who are not members of this House are not subject to protection. I think that the point of order taken by the honourable member for Denison was just a straight out time wasting exercise. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(7.58) —The Standing Orders ought to be looked at because Sir Phillip Lynch-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is a member of the Procedure Committee so he could take the matter up there. Mr HODGMAN —I will most certainly take it up. Sir Phillip Lynch was a very great Australian. I resent the fact that aspersions have been cast on him. Mr Andrew Hay is a very great Australian. This Parliament should not be used to attack persons outside the Parliament who do not have the opportunity to respond. It is a fundamental principle of natural justice that a person who attacks a person outside the Parliament does so from a position of privilege, does so ex parte, in the absence of, without notice to the person being attacked, and the innocent person has no chance at all to defend himself. Mr Campbell —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. The honourable member for Denison is defending Sir Phillip Lynch. I quite clearly withdrew any imputation against Sir Phillip Lynch. There is, therefore, no point of order in what the honourable member is saying. I very clearly withdrew that imputation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr HODGMAN —I want to expose the continuing chicanery of the Hawke socialist Government in relation to the farewell Bob tax. In the remaining minute available to me I place on record that I think it is a weak and cowardly act for this Government to threaten members of the Livestock and Grain Producers Association with gaol. Mr Scholes —Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: After the pious remarks of the honourable member for Denison about the Standing Orders, I respectfully suggest that the honour- able member is required to refer to the Prime Minister by his proper title. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister has made a point. If the honourable member for Denison refers to another honourable member he shall use his title. Mr HODGMAN —The Prime Minister is weak and cowardly in threatening LGPA members with gaol over the fringe benefits tax-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 8 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 8 October 1986: Lands Acquisition Act-Statements (3) of lands acquired by agreement authorised under sub-section 7 (1). The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1227) Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 23 May 1985: (1) On how many days has he been (a) absent from and (b) present at sittings of the House, during his period as Minister, up to the end of the Autumn period of sittings of this Parliament. (2) Is he able to say on how many days his predecessor was absent from sittings of the House during the corresponding period of the last Parliament. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) 14 (b) 19. (2) Mr Bowen was present for all sitting days during the 1983 Autumn sittings. (Question No. 2194) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 14 October 1985: (1) How many applications for the short term lease of Australian owned passenger aircraft for overseas charter or seasonal use have been (a) made and (b) approved in each year since 1980. (2) What has been the average time delay between the receipt of an application and its acceptance or rejection. (3) What are the departmental procedures and regulations covering requests for overseas lease requests. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) A systematic record of this information is not available. However, the following information has been identified from available records: 1980 Nil 1981 One 1982 One 1983 Nil 1984 One 1985 Three 1986 Nil (1) (b) as above. (2) In respect of those applications referred to in 1 (a) above Maximum 18 days Minimum 1 day Average 9 days (3) Applications are assessed in accordance with the Air Navigation Act, Regulations and Orders, primarily against operational criteria. (Question No. 2686) Mr Ruddock asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 25 November 1985: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an advertisement in the `Australian' of 30 October 1985 in support of the Builders Labourers Federation, in which it was stated that the advertisement was supported by the (a) Abortion Counselling Service (b) ACOA Rank and File Committee in Defence of Trade Union Rights, (c) ACT Shelter, (d) ACT Squatters Union, (e) ACT Youth Accommodation Group, (f) ACT Youth Forum, (g) Beryl Women's Refuge, (h) Campaign against Repression in the Pacific Area, (i) Canberra & South East Region Environment Centre, (j) Canberra Youth Refuge, (k) Chile Solidarity Committee, (1) Committee for Human Rights and Democracy in Turkey, (m) Committee in Solidarity with Central America, (n) Interchange Community Youth Support Scheme, (o) Jobless Action, (p) Jobline, (q) National Landrights Now Committee, (r) Photo Access, (s) Philippine Action Support Group, (t) Rape Crisis Centre, (u) Reachout, (v) Schools Against the Bomb, (w) Southern Africa Support Campaign of Australia, (x) Soweto Mobilisation Committee, (y) Students Against Apartheid, (z) Staff of Public Radio 2XX, (za) Toora-Single Women's Shelter, (zb) Women Against Racism and (zc) Trade Union Rights Committee. (2) Do any of the listed organisations receive financial support or grants from the Minister's Department or any statutory authority responsible to the Minister. (3) If so, has the Minister's Department or statutory authority received or searched the ACT Corporate Affairs Commission register for annual financial accounts and balance sheets of each organisation receiving funds. (4) Is each grant conditional upon (a) the submission of audited annual accounts and balance sheets and (b) a commitment to use the funds for the purpose for which the grant was made. (5) Does each grant permit use of funds contributed for political advertisements; if not, what checks have been made or will be made to ensure that the advertisement was not paid from grant funds. (6) Has each organisation receiving funds evidenced a capacity to raise money either in the past or in the year in question for its own purposes. (7) Have further applications for financial support been received or are likely to be received from each organisation; if so, will a check be made to ensure that the conditions of earlier grants have been honoured. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) I am informed that searches of relevant records of my Department and statutory authorities for which I am responsible do not disclose any payment from those areas of my portfolio, whether in the nature of grants, or financial assistance for legal costs or related expenses, to the organisations mentioned. However, as regards any possible grant of legal aid by the Australian Legal Aid Offices in the Northern Territory, Tasmania, and New South Wales, to the listed organisations, or individuals within those organisations, I cannot supply the information sought. Since the Australian Legal Aid Office was established it has been a concern of successive Attorneys-General that persons who have applied for assistance from, or to whom assistance is provided by, those Offices should have the same privileges arising from the relationship between solicitor and client as they would have if dealing with private solicitors. In those circumstances it would be improper for me to provide details of any payments by those Offices. I am able to say, however, that it has been long standing policy of the Australian Legal Aid Office not to grant legal aid to organisations. So far as the Legal Aid Commission of the ACT is concerned, notwithstanding that I am ministerially responsible for the Commission, I do not interfere in its decisions on individual matters as it is an independent body established under the Legal Aid Ordinance 1977 (ACT). Section 92 of the Ordinance is a secrecy provision which prohibits the disclosure of information acquired for the purposes of the Ordinance to any person and of the production of any document containing such information before a court unless the divulging of such information is considered by the court as necessary in the interests of justice. Accordingly, I am unable to say whether the Commission has provided financial assistance to the organisations named or to individual members of them. However, if any such assistance has been provided it would not have been in the form of a grant but as payment of actual legal expenses incurred by such organisation or individual member. Section 91a of the Ordinance provides for the Commission to make grants to voluntary legal assistance organisations in the Territory. I am informed by the Commission that no such grants have been made to any of the named organisations. (3) Not applicable. (4) Not applicable. (5) Not applicable (6) Not applicable. (7) Not applicable. (Question No. 2941) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Defence, who subsequently referred the question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) Is it a fact that under the terms of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, the entire Soviet Navy could (a) traverse the seas covered by the Treaty with both nuclear powered and nuclear armed ships and (b) establish regular ports of call without violating the terms of the Treaty. (2) What action is the Government taking to prevent the Soviet Union engaging in a military or naval build-up in the South Pacific area. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) The provisions of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone (SPNFZ) Treaty apply to the territory including seas over which the Parties to the Treaty have sovereignty. The Treaty does not affect the rights, or the exercise of the rights, of any state under international law with regard to freedom of the seas. (b) The Treaty expressly provides that each Party in the exercise of its sovereign rights remains free to decide for itself whether to allow visits by foreign ships and aircraft to its ports and airfields. (2) Australia welcomes any genuinely constructive interest in the Asian/Pacific region and is aware of the growth in recent years of Soviet interest and activity in the South Pacific area. But the Government is concerned at a possible increase in the Soviet Union's military presence there and would, of course, be critical of any negative aspect of a stronger Soviet presence. The Protocols to the SPNFZ Treaty provide for the Nuclear Weapon States (Britain, China, France, the United States and the USSR) to undertake not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against parties to the Treaty and not to test nuclear weapons in the South Pacific. The Treaty and its Protocols are thus intended to reinforce the favourable security situation the South Pacific has long enjoyed and to ensure that the South Pacific, unlike other parts of the world, does not become a theatre for nuclear confrontation. (Question No. 2962) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: What aid and other support is provided to South Pacific nations for aviation development. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: My Department has supported aviation development in South Pacific countries in various ways, including the provision of specialised training and advice in a consultancy role and release of technical experts for both short and long-term assignments in these countries. In a number of instances, funding has been provided by the Australian Development Assistance Bureau. Following are the major areas of support provided by Australia in which my Department is or has been involved: Papua New Guinea Eleven staff from the Department of Aviation are attached to the Papua New Guinea aviation administration, providing assistance in the field of airways engineering. The costs associated with this function are met by the Papua New Guinea Government. The current arrangement has been extended by agreement until 30 June 1987, but is being phased out. The Papua New Guinea Government is recruiting staff under contract in various technical and administrative areas. Fourteen officers of the Department of Aviation have been released for this purpose. During 1986 a total of twelve Papua New Guinean personnel attended eight technical courses of three to four weeks duration conducted by the Department of Aviation and funded by ADAB. Solomon Islands A Department of Aviation air traffic control officer has been released to work with the Solomon Islands Aviation Authorities for a two year period commencing January 1985 under contract to the Solomon Islands Government. Following the cutting of all communications in the Solomon Islands in the wake of Cyclone Namu, the Department of Aviation Flight Service Unit at Sydney provided Flight Information and Search and Rescue Alerting Services in the Honiara Flight Information Region. A Department of Aviation Airports Engineer was also sent to the Solomon Islands to assist in the restoration of aviation facilities during the emergency period. Tonga Equipment and technical assistance have been provided, with funding from ADAB, to assist the Tongan Government with the construction of the Nuiafo'ou Airstrip. The project was completed in June 1986. The Department of Aviation acted as managing agent for ADAB during the course of the project, which commenced in 1981 and cost $A241,350.00. Vanuatu Consultancy services and project works to resurface Bauerfield Airport, and technical assistance to facilitate the establishment of a capability within the Government sector to manage and maintain the completed works are being funded by ADAB. The Departments of Aviation and Housing and Construction are providing assistance in advisory and oversighting capacities. The project, which commenced in 1985, is estimated to cost $A3 million. A radio technical officer from the Department of Aviation was contracted by ADAB to work with the Vanuatu aviation authorities for a period of six months during the first half of this year. Western Samoa ADAB provided a grant to assist the Western Samoan Government in the upgrading of Faleolo Airport to a standard where it will be capable of handling wide-bodied aircraft. The Department of Aviation provided technical assistance for the project which commenced in 1978 and is estimated to cost some $5.4 million. International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Countries in the region which do not have any permanent representation at ICAO headquarters in Montreal have been invited to contact Australia's representative on the ICAO governing Council for assistance with matters relating to the Organization's activities. Our Council representative visited a number of South Pacific countries in 1984 to re-emphasise Australia's willingness to assist in this regard and in other aspects of aviation development. (Question No. 3418) Mr Macphee asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 14 March 1986: (1) Is it a fact that the 0176 operator service provided by Telecom for persons calling from public telephone boxes is overloaded. (2) In which capital cities are the 0176 operators located and does this disadvantage country areas. (3) Will he take steps to ensure that those who use public telephone boxes are not faced with long delays and queues due to an inadequate 0176 service. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1) There would be occasions when unacceptable delays have occurred. However, the majority of calls to 0176 meet the Telecom standard of 90% being answered within 20 seconds. (2) 0176 operators are located in all capital cities as well as in a large number of country areas. All callers, whether they be metropolitan or country, receive the same standard of service. (3) Telecom will continue to ensure that calls received by manual assistance operators are handled as expeditiously as practicable. (Question No. 3431) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 19 March 1986: (1) How many secondhand articulated Volvo-Fuji buses have been imported from Japan in the last 12 months. (2) Is the Minister able to say (a) who purchased the buses and (b) at what price. (3) What tariff was applied to the buses. (4) Is the Minister able to say what the buses were used for in Japan. (5) Was any special approval required for the importation; if so, by whom. (6) Was the Australian coach building industry given the opportunity to (a) quote on supply of the buses or (b) indicate its ability to provide similar vehicles. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) 73. (2) (a) The buses were imported by Volvo Australia Ltd. Most have been sold through Volvo dealers but final purchasers are not known. (b) Information on the purchase price of these buses is not available. (3) 22 1/2 per cent for those buses imported prior to 31 December 1985 and 20 per cent for any imported since 1 January 1986. (4) The buses were used to transport visitors to the International Exposition held in Tsukuba, Japan, in 1985. They travelled from the railway station to the Expo site, a distance of approximately 13 kilometres. (5) No. (6) (a) and (b) No. These buses were not purchased against any specific order. Because of their size these articulated buses could not be used on the roads in Japan and were offered for sale at the conclusion of the Expo. The buses are on Volvo chassis and were purchased by Volvo Australia on favourable terms. I understand that local coach builders are undertaking some modifications and repainting. (Question No. 3810) Mr Price asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 17 April 1986: (1) In order to establish new universities and colleges of advanced education is the relevant State or Territory Government required to (a) enact legislation and (b) donate land. (2) Does the Federal Government pay the capital and recurrent costs. (3) Has any State Government been prepared to make a significant contribution to the capital or recurrent costs of any new university or college of advance education; if so, what was the (a) name of the institution; (b) amount of the contribution and (c) percentage of costs contributed. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Universities and colleges of advanced education situated in the States or the Northern Territory are established under acts of the relevant Parliament. Commonwealth institutions such as the Australian National University, Canberra College of Advance Education and the Australian Maritime College are established under Acts of the Commonwealth Parliament. Commonwealth funds provided to the States and Northern Territory for higher education are made available by way of the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act. It is not a requirement of that legislation that land be donated when institutions are established. (2) Following advice from the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, the Commonwealth Government may provide grants of financial assistance for capital and recurrent purposes for universities and colleges of advanced education identified in the first and second schedules of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Act 1977 as amended. Institutions listed in these schedules are approved by the Commonwealth Government on advice from the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. (3) Prior to 1974, universities and colleges of advanced education attracted capital and recurrent funds from the States. Details of State contributions and the value of State funded facilities now incorporated into such institutions of higher education are not available. Since 1974 the Commonwealth has accepted full financial responsibility for approved university and CAE facilities and programs. There have been some cases, however, where State funds have been used to provide higher education facilities. For example, the Western Australian Government completed facilities in 1985 for advanced education purposes at Bunbury, the Northern Territory has announced its intention to fund a university college in Darwin and the Victorian Government will contribute to the development of the Western Institute in Melbourne. The State Governments and the institutions themselves are not required to provide details of an institution's total source of income, whether State or private funds, to the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission does not therefore have details of the contributions available to these institutions. (Question No. 3850) Mr Hodges asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 1 May 1986: (1) How many eligible and properly qualified secondary school leavers are being denied entrance into tertiary institutions because of insufficient places. (2) Has the Government examined the recent EPAC report which suggests the introduction of fees to provide extra student places. (3) Has there been any discussion between the federal and State Governments and tertiary institutions about the practicality of this proposal. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) In relation to unmet demand for higher education, the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee (AVCC) and the Australian Committee of Directors and Principals in Advanced Education (ACDP) have recently published the results of a survey of admissions authorities and institutions, which sought information on the number of eligible applicants who did not receive offers in 1986. The AVCC and the ACDP concluded that, for Australia as a whole, between 9,000 and 14,000 students who were eligible for entry and who would have accepted an offer if it had been made, did not receive an offer. The Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (CTEC) has advised that, in view of a change in the definition of eligibility in New South Wales (which led to the inclusion in the 1986 data of many more NSW students from the lower end of the ability scale), unmet demand probably lies closer to the lower end of the 9,000-14,000 range. Year 12 school leavers account for about half the total level of unmet demand, that is, in the range of 4,500-7000. Of these it could be expected that some may have sought and obtained entry to TAFE and some of the balance may repeat Year 12 to improve their chances for entry in 1987. In each year since coming to office the Government has provided for significant increases in higher education intakes. Provision for an extra 2700-3300 intakes in 1987 at a cost of $18 million was made in the recent Budget. As a result of this and decisions in earlier years on intakes there will be an extra 11,000 higher education places in 1987 compared to this year's level. For Australia as a whole, student places in higher education will have increased in the period 1983 to 1987 by about 36,800 to around 300,000, a growth of 14 per cent. The Government's decisions on intakes confirm its commitment to steady planned growth and the expansion of opportunities for participation in higher education, particularly by young people and disadvantaged groups. The CTEC has advised that national data on unmet demand for TAFE courses is not available, either in total or for school leavers. (2) Yes. (3) No. (Question No. 3889) Mr Wright asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 2 May 1986: (1) How many tertiary places have been available in Queensland for each of the academic years since 1976. (2) What was the federal Government's expenditure in Queensland on post secondary education in each of those years. (3) What were the reasons for reviewing of the Government's policy on assistance to overseas students. (4) What changes have taken place in Australia regarding the provision of tertiary places since 1976. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Details of places are not available so the following table provides enrolment data. Between 1976 and 1983 there was no significant evidence of unmet demand in higher education and in some years some institutions may have been able to take additional students. It should also be noted that the material collected is not strictly comparable over all years of the period. STUDENT ENROLMENT IN TERTIARY EDUCATION IN QUEENSLAND 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 UNIVERSITIES ... 20,904 21,513 21,958 21,721 22,249 22,392 22,528 22,867 23,670 23,996 ADVANCED EDUCATION CAEs ... 14,517 17,553 20,138 21,388 22,979 23,418 22,834 23,742 24,960 26,658 Other Institutions (a) ... - - - - 522 894 2,151 2,362 2,671 2,860 Total Advanced Education ... 14.517 17,553 20,138 21,388 23,501 24,312 24,985 26,104 27,631 29,518 TAFE (b) Streams 1-5 ... 47,986 45,984 48,288 49,446 53,601 60,576 64,168 79,201 90,642 104,298 Stream 6 ... 45,488 36,553 38,722 42,342 55,723 59,861 44,780 64,239 75,762 79,936 (a) Advanced education courses are conducted by colleges of advanced education, technical and further education institutions and non-government tertiary institutions. Prior to 1980 the advanced education annual statistical collection captured data relating to advanced education courses conducted only by colleges of advanced education. In 1980 the collection also included some details of advanced education courses conducted in TAFE institutions. The 1981 and later collections include details of advanced education courses conducted in non-government tertiary institutions and therefore provide complete coverage of the advanced education sector. (b) In 1981, the TAFE Annual Statistical Collection incorporated a new collection of student statistics for TAFE to replace the former collection which had operated since 1974. A key feature of the new collection methodology is its emphasis on the individual student as a unit of reporting rather than on enrolment as previously; at every level of the collection (e.g. stream, authority), any individual student is counted once only even though that student may record a number of valid and separate enrolments at that level during the year. The collection draws a clear distinction also between those programs classified to the vocational and preparatory Streams of TAFE (Streams 1 to 5) and those classified to the adult education Stream (Stream 6). The collection methodology precludes the net number of students in Streams 1 to 5 being added to the net number of students in Stream 6 to derive the net number of students enrolled in all TAFE programs as the resultant figure will contain multiple counting to the extent that some students undertaking a program in Streams 1 to 5 are also enrolled in a Stream 6 program during the reference year. (2) The following table provides details of actual grants provided to the States as set out in the relevant States Grants Act. The figures provided are in a different cost levels and are not directly comparable from one to another. COMMONWEALTH GRANTS PAID TO QUEENSLAND FOR TERTIARY EDUCATION, 1975 to 1985 (a) (b) Year Univer- sities CAEs TAFE (b) Total $m $m $m $m Financial Year 1975-76 ... 63.6 43.2 8.0 114.8 1976-77 ... 81.1 63.6 9.0 153.7 1977-78 ... 85.5 64.5 13.6 163.6 Calendar Year 1978 ... 83.6 69.0 16.1 168.7 1979 ... 93.7 70.5 21.9 186.1 1980 ... 101.3 75.7 18.4 195.4 1981 ... 116.1 90.1 20.9 227.1 1982 ... 133.1 92.4 23.5 249.0 1983 ... 141.1 99.7 27.6 268.4 1984 ... 157.3 108.8 39.5 305.6 1985 ... 165.2 124.4 47.9 337.5 (a) Payments made in relation to grants specified under the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act. (b) The States have the primary responsibility for TAFE and therefore for meeting the normal operating costs of TAFE institutions. The Commonwealth provides general purpose recurrent grants to reimburse the States for revenue forgone as a result of the abolition of tuition fees in 1974, recurrent grants for special purposes, capital grants and special equipment grants. In total, the amount provided under States Grants legislation accounts for about 22 per cent of total government expenditure on TAFE. (3) Overseas student policy was reviewed in 1983 by both the Jackson and Goldring Committees. A Task Force was convened to recommend a coherent policy out of the conclusions of the two Committees. The reviews had been commissioned to address: - increasing pressure from overseas students for entry - concentration of overseas students within several well established tertiary institutions and particular faculties and courses - administrative difficulties associated with fragmentation of responsibility for overseas students - need to ensure that there should be no increased costs to Australian taxpayers - reconciliation of pressure from Australian students with desirability to contribute to greater international understanding, particularly with countries in this region. (4) In the period 1976-83 higher education funding levels, in real terms, decreased each year. Furthermore little effort had been made to increase opportunities for people traditionally unrepresented in tertiary education to gain access to higher education institutions. Since 1983, this Government has had a strong commitment to the tertiary education sector, determined to return funding to a level that would accommodate growth and broaden access to tertiary education. Substantial progress has been made in these directions with additional resources being provided to improve participation generally and to achieve equity in access by disadvantaged groups. In the first four years of the Hawke Government, from 1983 to 1987, total funds for tertiary education will have increased by 7.8 per cent in real terms. Higher education places have increased by 36,800 over the period 1983-87-a growth of 14 per cent. Under the last four years of the previous Fraser Government, however, there was a decline in tertiary funding of 0.6 per cent. It should be noted that State Governments are largely responsible for the provision of TAFE funding. Since 1983, however, the Commonwealth Government has provided substantial financial assistance to the States to achieve the Government's aims as outlined above. (Question No. 3916) Mr Smith asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 6 May 1986: (1) What has been the funding allocation by the Minister's Department for Tasmania in each year since 1983-84. (2) What federal Department of Education funds go to private schools in Tasmania and what is the breakdown of grants to each private school in Tasmania since March 1983. (3) What federal funds are allocated to the Tasmanian Government for State education purposes. (4) How many TEAS applications have been (a) received, (b) accepted and (c) rejected in Tasmania since March 1983. (5) How many TEAS appeals have been (a) lodged and (b) upheld in Tasmania since March 1983. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Commonwealth payments to government and non-government schools are made under several separate programs and are all paid on a calendar year basis. (1) Funding allocation for Tasmania is as follows: Schools General Recurrent and Capital Funding 1983 1984 1985 1986 $,000 $'000 $'000 $'000 Government- General Recurrent... 9,632 10,047 11,071 11,901 Capital (includes Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander element)... 4,288 4,613 4,704 4,650 Non-Government- General Recurrent... 11,973 13,465 *15,010 *15,840 Capital... 1,435 1,334 1,405 1,295 TOTAL-General Recurrent and Capital... 27,324 29,459 32,182 33,686 Schools Specific Programs Government... 1,869 3,508 3,861 3,203 Non-Government... 279 456 551 588 Joint Government and Non-Government... 1,468 2,388 1,333 1,296 TOTAL-Specific Programs... 3,516 6,352 5,745 5,087 Tertiary Education Funding University- Recurrent... 33,409 ++36,190 ++38,311 ++39,845 Equipment... 960 1,156 1,249 1,290 Capital... 490 771 2,173 2,550 TOTAL... 34,859 38,117 41,773 +43,685 Advanced Education- Recurrent... 9,796 10,765 11,544 12,140 Equipment... 255 310 385 398 Capital... 170 156 160 166 TOTAL... 10,221 11,231 12,089 +12,704 TAFE- Recurrent... 3,458 4,928 5,267 4,886 Equipment... 381 424 521 489 Capital... 1,738 1,645 1,139 1,453 TOTAL... 5,577 6,997 6,927 +6,828 TOTAL-Tertiary... 50,657 56,345 60,749 63,217 * Current estimate. + In accordance with Act No. 160 of 1985. ++ Does not include the following amounts to be paid in 1986 as the result of the Federal Court Decision on the phasing in of the academic salary increase awarded in 1984. 1984 1985 Paid in 1986 $'000 $'000 ($'000) University recurrent... 328 173 501 Advanced Education Recurrent... 108 52 160 Total... 661 (2) Commonwealth general recurrent funding for non-government schools is as follows: 1983 1984 1985 $'000 $'000 $'000 Non-government Non-systemic Schools... 8,356 9,171 10,304 Non-government Systemic Schools... 3,617 4,295 4,706 Further details of Commonwealth funding, including information on grants to individual non-government schools, are contained in the report tabled in Parliament each year on assistance granted under the relevant States Grants (Schools Assistance) Acts. The latest report on financial assistance granted to each State was in respect of 1984 and was tabled in the Parliament on 3 June 1986. A copy of these reports has been forwarded to the honourable member. The report for 1985 may be ready for tabling in the 1986 Budget Session of Parliament, however this will depend on returns from grant recipients which are already long overdue. (3) As for (1) above excluding funding allocations to non-government schools. (4) and (5)- (a) Applications Received (b) Allowances Paid (c) Applications Rejected (a) Appeals Lodged (b) Appeals Upheld 1983... 2,653 2,331 229 10 2 1984... 2,822 2,498 233 7 2 1985... 3,157 2,719 197 4 1 1986... 3,360 2,992 249 1 0 (to 13 May) (to 13 May) (to 13 May) (to 26 May) (to 26 May) (Question No. 3967) Mr Downer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 8 May 1986: (1) What has been the funding allocation by the Minister's Department for South Australia in each year since 1983-84. (2) What federal Department of Education funds go to private schools in South Australia and what is the breakdown of grants to each private school in South Australia since March 1983. (3) What federal funds are allocated to the South Australian Government for State education purposes. (4) How many TEAS applications have been (a) received, (b) accepted and (c) rejected in South Australia since March 1983. (5) How many TEAS appeals have been (a) lodged and (b) upheld in South Australia since March 1983. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Commonwealth payments to government and non-government schools are made under several separate programs and are all paid on a calendar year basis. (1) Funding allocation for South Australia is as follows: 1983 1984 1985 1986 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 Schools General Recurrent and Capital Funding Government- General Recurrent... 29,023 30,238 32,318 31,779 Capital (includes Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander element)... 12,963 14,450 14,961 14,569 Non-government- General Recurrent... 35,861 39,853 *43,973 *46,919 Capital... 3,717 3,436 3,596 3,465 TOTAL-General Recurrent and Capital... 81,536 87,977 94,727 96,732 Schools Specific Programs Government... 9,340 13,591 14,750 12,663 Non-government... 1,697 2,225 2,458 5,233 Joint Government and Non-government... 4,036 6,548 4,401 4,230 TOTAL-Specific Programs... 15,073 22,364 21,609 22,126 Tertiary Education Funding University- Recurrent... 87,178 *94,260 *101,168 *105,527 Equipment... 3,890 4,461 4,528 4,676 Capital... 1,005 1,575 1,153 1,800 TOTAL... 92,073 100,296 106,849 +112,003 Advanced Education- Recurrent... 63,774 68,886 75,494 78,610 Equipment... 3,235 2,863 2,998 3,143 Capital... 910 937 1,208 1,300 TOTAL... 67,919 72,686 79,700 +83,053 TAFE- Recurrent... 9,621 13,646 14,963 14,018 Equipment... 927 1,031 1,353 1,390 Capital... 11,544 13,867 12,317 9,860 TOTAL... 22,092 28,544 28,633 +25,268 TOTAL-Tertiary... 182,084 201,526 215,182 220,324 * Current estimate + In accordance with Act No. 160 of 1985. * Does not include the following amounts to be paid in 1986 as the result of the Federal Court decision on the phasing in of the academic salary increase awarded in 1984. 1984 1985 Paid in 1986 $'000 $'000 ($'000) University Recurrent... 862 456 1,318 Advanced Education Recurrent... 686 340 1,026 TOTAL... 2,344 (2) Commonwealth general recurrent funding for non-government schools is as follows: 1983 1984 1985 $'000 $'000 $'000 Non-government Non-systemic Schools... 18,230 20,094 22,526 Catholic Systemic Schools... 15,546 17,429 18,903 Lutheran Systemic Schools... 1,822 2,069 2,303 Seventh Day Adventist Systemic Schools... 263 261 241 Further details of Commonwealth funding, including information on grants to individual non-government schools, are contained in the report tabled in Parliament each year on assistance granted under the relevant States Grants (Schools Assistance) Acts. The latest report on financial assistance granted to each State was in respect of 1984 and was tabled in the Parliament on 3 June 1986. A copy of these reports has been forwarded to the honourable member. The report for 1985 may be ready for tabling in the 1986 Budget Session of Parliament, however this will depend on returns from grant recipients which are already long overdue. (3) As for (1) above excluding funding allocations to non-government schools. (4) and (5)- (a) Applications received (b) Allowances paid (c) Applications rejected (a) Appeals lodged (b) Appeals upheld 1983... 9,971 8,674 1,040 24 12 1984... 10,281 8,838 1,153 20 7 1985... 10,542 9,062 1,143 17 2 1986... 10,425 8,775 959 2 0 (to 13 May) (to 13 May) (to 13 May) (to 26 May) (to 26 May) (Question No. 4188) Mr Duncan asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 3 June 1986: (1) Have Vice-Chancellors of Universities and Directors and Principals of Colleges of Advanced Education recently been awarded a salary increase by the Academic Salaries Tribunal. (2) Were the applicants represented by their appropriate unions, the Federation of Australian Universities Staff Associations and the Federation of College Academics; if not, were the applicants represented by counsel. (3) Was counsel for the applicants in this inquiry paid by the relevant unions, individual applicants or the universities and colleges of advanced education, either separately or together, or through the Australian Vice-Chancellors Council (AVCC) or the Australian Committee of Directors and Principals (ACDP) in Advanced Education. (4) If paid by the institutions either separately or together, or through the AVCC or the ACDP, can the Minister assure the Parliament that public funds were not misused in pursuing salary increases outside wage guidelines on behalf of a small group of persons. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) On 22 November 1985 the Academic Salaries Tribunal presented a Report following its Inquiry into the Salaries of Vice-Chancellors, Principals of Colleges and their Deputies recommending increases in salaries. The Government has accepted the recommendations of the Report. (2) The applicants for an Inquiry were: i. The Chancellors of 18 universities ii. The Presidents and Chairpersons of 12 colleges of advanced education iii. The President of Council of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology. These applicants were represented by counsel. Other parties later joined the Inquiry and made submissions. The Australian Vice-Chancellor's Committee and the Australian Committee of Directors and Principals in Advanced Education considered it inappropriate to make submissions as the matters before the Tribunal included a review of the salaries of their members. (3) Information on payments to counsel is not available to the Academic Salaries Tribunal, the Department of Education or the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. (4) See answer to part (3). (Question No. 4257) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 4 June 1986: (1) What is the operational standard of the Surfer's Paradise International Raceway Airstrip at Broadbeach, Qld. (2) Who (a) owns and (b) operates the airfield. (3) Have there been any incident or accident reports or complaints from nearby residents concerning operations from this airfield; if so, (a) what are they and (b) have they increased in the time since ``Jupiter's Casino'' opened on the Gold Coast. (4) Will he investigate the increased traffic at this airfield and ensure the safety of operations. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's questions is as follows: (1) The airstrip referred to is an Authorised Landing Area (ALA) established under the general authorisation under the Air Navigational Regulations (ANR 85)which permits its use as an aerodrome for the purposes of landing and take-off of aircraft up to a maximum take-off weight not exceeding 5700 kgs, subject to certain conditions. The ALA in question has been in use for some twenty years at least and is used quite regularly by light aircraft. It is situated in an area where the Department of Aviation does not, and is not required to, exercise control over the aircraft. The pilot-in-command is responsible for compliance with the laid-down standards and procedures at all times to ensure the safety of the operation of the aircraft. (2) Surfers Paradise International Raceway owns the airstrip. (a) The only known operator at the airstrip is Bruce McGarvie Air Charter. (3) (a) Details of Accidents at Surfers Gardens airstrip, and Air Safety Incidents at or near the airstrip for the period 6.11.77 to 25.8.86: ACCIDENTS (Nine in the period) Date Type aircraft Brief details Damage/ injury 6.11.77... Bell 47G2 Misjudged landing Substantial/Nil 29.03.78... Hughes 269C Landing gear (skid assembly) failure due to metal fatigue Substantial/Nil 30.04.78... Hughes 269C Misjudged landing Substantial/Nil 3.10.81... Beech 76 Nosewheel fell from the aircraft soon after lift-off Substantial/Nil 18.09.82... Beech 36 Aircraft failed to climb after lift-off. Hit boundary fence. Slid 55 metres Substantial/Nil 2.08.83... Piper 28 R201 Inadvertent wheels-up landing Substantial/Nil 18.01.84... Beech 95 Taxying accident. Aircraft slid on soft wet surface, and struck a packed aircraft Substantial/Nil 3.07.84... DH 82 Aircraft struck by severe wind squall during taxi in. Tipped onto back Substantial/Nil 4.11.84... Cessna 172N Pilot landed aircraft on unserviceable portion of strip. Aircraft overturned. Substantial/Nil INCIDENTS (Nine listed below. Notes at end of this section also refer) Date Type aircraft Brief details 13.10.79... DH 82 Pilot conducted aerobatics at about 1500' close to another aircraft, near airstrip 6.04.80... DH 82 Pilot conducted aerobatics below 3000' near the airstrip 27.05.81... Beech 36 Pilot operated from strip marked as unserviceable 18.06.82... Piper PA28-180 Engine lost power during the take-off roll. Remained on strip 18.07.82... Beech 58 Parked unattended aircraft destroyed by fire early in the morning 27.08.83... Cessna 172 Pilot landed at the unlit strip four minutes after the end of daylight 12.12.83... Cessna 206 Complete loss of engine power at top of climb after take-off. Force-landed on the strip 25.03.84... Cessna 182P Pilot landed on wet strip and over-ran strip into a drain. Minor damage 2.01.86... Not known Complaint from resident of Mobile Home Park of near collision between two aircraft over the Park. No reports received by BASI from any pilots. Date/time/aircraft involved were not established. During the above period, there were also some 20 other reports of incidents either at or near Surfers Gardens concerning such things as inadequate communications procedures by pilots, defects or apparent defects in aircraft, and loss of fuel from parked aircraft. In addition, an ultralight aircraft was involved in a forced landing accident on 28.12.82 while operating near Surfers Gardens-Substantial damage, nil injury. (3) (b) BASI Brisbane Field Office has received only one report of an occurrence at or near Surfers Gardens airstrip since the opening of Jupiters Casino, viz. the complaint from the resident of the Mobile Home Park (see last incident above). On the available evidence, there is nothing to indicate any increase in air safety occurrences at or near Surfers Gardens since the opening of Jupiters Casino. Advice for Jupiter's Casino, is that the ``Soft'' Opening was on 23.11.85, and the Grand Opening was on 14.2.86. (4) Traffic to Surfers Gardens ALA, outside controlled airspace is not presently monitored as aircraft are not required to submit flight details when using this aerodrome; therefore there is no way of checking on traffic levels without physically basing an officer at the aerodrome for a specified period. Even if this was to be done, it would not be possible to compare the present traffic levels with those which existed at some unmonitored time in the past. (Question No. 4274) Mr Andrew asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 5 June 1986: Is he able to say how many persons were killed during wars, warlike operations or by other disturbances in the years 1983 to 1985 and so far in 1986, in each African country. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: It will be appreciated that in recent years a number of wars, warlike situations and disturbances have occurred in parts of Africa, some of them in remote and isolated places. These include conflicts in the Horn of Africa, Uganda, Mozambique, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Angola, Chad and Western Sahara to name a few. There is only a very limited amount of official and other information publicly available about most of these conflicts. Accordingly, my Department does not have available to it any reliable statistics that could be used to provide a worthwhile response to this very broad ranging question. (Question No. 4298) Mr Milton asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 5 June 1986: What funds have been provided to (a) non-Government schools and (b) Government schools in the Electoral Division of La Trobe for each of the financial years 1981-82 to 1985-86. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Commonwealth payments to government and non-government schools are made under several separate programs and are all paid on a calendar year basis. General Recurrent Grants (a) Attachment A lists the amount of recurrent grants paid to non-government non-systemic schools in the Electoral division of La Trobe. The amounts shown for 1986 are payments made to date and are approximately 50% of the schools total entitlement for this year. Attachment B lists the amount of recurrent funds allocated to non-government catholic systemic schools in the electorate up to 1985. Systemic schools are administered by a System Authority. Grants are paid to the System Authority which allocates funds to schools according to their needs. The amounts paid in 1986 to individual schools will not be available from the System Authority until September this year. There are no non-government non-catholic systemic schools in this electorate. (b) Commonwealth assistance to State Government schools is provided in block form to the State Department of Education. General recurrent grants funding for government schools in Victoria is as follows: $ 1981... 70,044,500 1982... 73,868,000 1983... 80,994,000 1984... 85,007,000 1985... 92,145,928 1986... 101,255,800 (paid to date 21.7.86) Capital Grants (a) Attachment C lists the amount of capital grants paid to non-government schools from 1981 to 1986. (b) These grants are also provided in block form to the State Department of Education. Details of funding under the Capital Grants Program for government schools in Victoria are as follows: $ 1981... 31,771,000 1982... 33,261,000 1983... 37,290,000 1984... 39,602,000 1985... 38,777,000 1986... 40,279,000 (December 1985 prices) English as a Second Language (ESL) Program This Program aims to develop and improve the competence in English of students of non-English speaking background (NESB). The Program has two elements: the General Support element for students of non-English speaking background resident in Australia and needing to improve their English competency; and the New Arrivals element which provides for intensive English language instruction for newly arrived students of non-English speaking background. (a) Details of funds allocated to non-government schools from 1981 to 1986 are provided at Attachment D. (b) Details of total funds allocated to Victorian Government schools from 1981 to 1986 are provided at Attachment E. Special Education Program This Program aims to improve the quality and coverage of educational services to disabled children by supplementing the funding of special schools and regular schools in which children with special needs are enrolled; by assisting the integration of disabled children into regular schools; and by funding education programs for severely disabled children, children in residential institutions and disabled children below school age. (a) Details of funding to non-government schools are set out below: Maranatha Christian School, Hallan North Road, Endeavour Hills, Vic. 3802 Integration 1986-$300 St John the Baptist School, 19 Forest Road Ferntree Gully, Vic. 3156 Integration 1983-$1,000 1984-$1,000 St Francis Xavier College, Beaconsfield Avenue, Beaconsfield, Vic. 3807 Integration 1984-$1,000 Burremah Educational Unit, 18 Photinia Street, Doveton, Vic. 3177 Recurrent Grants 1981-$19,205 1982-$29,314 1983-$31,388 1984-$26,877 1985-$28,511 1986-$7,682 Knoxbrooke Day Training Centre, 977 Burwood Highway, Ferntree Gully, Vic. 3156 Recurrent Grants-National element 1986-$10,931 (b) Details of funding to government schools are not available. BASIC LEARNING IN PRIMARY SCHOOLS PROGRAM This Program provides assistance to education authorities to raise the levels of achievement of primary school children in basic subjects with particular emphasis on literacy and numeracy. 1985 1986 $ $ (a) Non-Government Schools Holy Family School, Doveton... 24,500 25,000 (b) Government Schools Chalcot Primary School... 1,500 Eumemmerring Primary School... 2,100 Kallista Primary School... 1,500 Mossgiel Park Primary School... 2,000 Narre Warren South Primary School... 1,000 Doveton North Primary School... 3,300 COMPUTER EDUCATION PROGRAM (a) Non-Government Schools 1984-each secondary school in Victoria received a resource kit of computer education materials of approximate value $100 -a total of $2,865 was provided to schools on the basis of school-based submissions 1986-a total of $3,400 was provided to schools on the basis of school-based submissions. In addition teachers from schools in the electorate have been eligible to attend both stage 1 (5 day hands on computer inservice) courses and stage 2 (5 day curriculum and social implications) courses. For these courses 50 per cent of teacher replacement costs and travel and accommodation costs were provided. (b) Government Schools 1984-Boronia Technical School received a grant of $5,000 as part of the Minor Project Schools Program. 1985-Upwey High School received a grant of $5,068 as part of the Minor Project Schools Program. In addition two five day inservice programs have been available for teachers from schools in this electorate to attend. Full teacher replacement and travel and accommodation costs have been met for these activities. Teachers have also had access to Computer Resource Centres for advice and assistance with software evaluation, curriculum development and locally funded professional development courses. OTHER PROGRAMS Details of funding under the Multicultural education Program and the Professional Development Program in respect of schools in the La Trobe electorate are not available. St Bernadette's Primary School, The Basin, received $3,384 in 1983, $6,048 in 1984, and $6,511 in 1985 under the Ethnic Schools Program. Ferntree Gully Technical School, Hallam High School and Berwick High School received $2,200, $2,475 and $2,500 respectively in 1985 under the School Evaluation Element of the Projects of National Significance Program. Attachment A LA TROBE ELECTORATE Commonwealth General Recurrent Grants Paid to Non-government Non-systemic schools School Name and Location 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 $ $ $ $ $ $ Paid to date Mater Christi College, 28 Bayview Road Belgrave... 519,078 680,768 794,952 865,780 872,790 461,070 Belgrave Heights Christian School, 244 Mount Morton Road Belgrave Heights... commenced in '83 11,970 8,820 10,620 7,989 St Margaret's School, 27 Gloucester Avenue Berwick... 166,035 220,603 251,226 272,739 300,093 160,276 Maranatha Christian School, Hallum North Road Endeavour Hills... 230,788 290,833 360,423 478,868 504,844 267,654 Coonara Community School, 20 Willow Road Upper Ferntree Gully... 20,081 17,880 15,732 16,412 16,611 8,977 Special Schools Burremah Educational Unit, 18 Photinia Street Doveton... 19,205 29,314 2,052 3,243 5,737 3,034 Knoxbrooke Day Training Centre, 977 Burwood Highway Ferntree Gully... 20,750 19,961 17,305 24,327 47,347 25,073 TOTAL... 975,937 1,259,359 1,753,660 1,670,189 1,758,042 934,073 Attachment B LA TROBE ELECTORATE Commonwealth General Recurrent Grants allocated to Non-government Catholic Systemic Schools School Name and Location 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 $ $ $ $ $ St Francis Xavier College, Beaconsfield Avenue, Beaconsfield... 289,651 510,922 657,713 753,360 791,233 St Thomas More's Primary School, P.O. Box 144, Belgrave... 117,791 151,268 160,351 218,565 205,378 St Michael's School, 16 Scanlan Street, Berwick... 105,175 101,350 106,950 122,366 158,177 Holy Family School, Pittosporum Grove, Doveton... 143,465 200,257 195,813 200,732 191,164 St Paul The Apostle Primary School, 78 Matthew Flinders Avenue, Endeavour Hills... 164,711 276,469 334,863 359,765 323,152 St Paul Apostle North, Mossgiel Park Drive, Endeavour Hills... School commenced in 1985 135,501 St John the Baptist School, 19 Forest Road, Ferntree Gully... 181,999 250,706 280,916 309,811 286,457 St Joseph's Regional College, Lysterfield Road, Ferntree Gully... 488,220 668,473 758,258 901,060 950,736 Don Bosco Primary School, 496 Princess Highway, Narre Warren... commenced in 1982 118,973 136,954 189,675 179,223 St Bernadette's Primary School, 1264 Mountain Highway, The Basin... started in 1983 173,743 183,520 190,847 Total... 1,491,012 2,278,418 2,805,561 3,238,854 3,411,868 Attachment C LA TROBE ELECTORATE Commonwealth Capital Grants Paid to Non-government Schools School 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Total Holy Family School, Doveton ... 100,666(c) 49,034(c) 49,982(c) 5,018(c) . . . . 204,700 2,250(L) 1,000(L) 2,180(L) . . 2.000(L) . . 7,430 Maranatha Christian School, Endeavour Hills ... 15.515(c) 344,585(c) . . . . 136,200(c) . . 496,300 St John the Baptist School, Ferntree Gully ... . . 130,000(c) . . . . . . . . 130,000 2,640(L) 2,880(L) 3,360(L) 13,600(L) . . . . 22,480 St Joseph's Regional College, Ferntree Gully ... . . . . . . . . . . 318,900(c) 318,900 . . . . . . . . 5,000(L) . . 5,000 St Margaret's School, Berwick ... . . 3,000(c) . . . . . . . . 3,000 1,350(L) 1,000(L) 3,180(L) . . . . . . 5,530 St Thomas More's Primary School, Belgrave ... 5,030(L) 1,800(L) 2,600(L) 10,000 8,500(L) . . 27,930 Coonara Community School, Upper Ferntree Gully ... . . 1,760(L) . . . . . . . . 1,760 St Francis Xavier College, Beaconsfield ... 75,000(c) 225,000(c) . . 128,500(c) 39,300(c) 253,400(c) 721,200 8,400(L) 8,000(L) 2,000(L) . . 6,052(L) . . 24,452 Burremah Educational Unit, Doveton ... . . . . 1,000(L) 1,900(L) 1,000(L) . . 3,900 Knoxbrooke Day Training Centre, Ferntree Gully ... . . 1,000(L) 1,000(L) 3,500(L) 2,000(L) . . 7,500 St Paul The Apostle Primary School, Endeavour Hills ... 175,000(c) 270,000(c) 42,732(c) 93,813(c) . . . . 581,545 7,421(L) 9,640(L) 4,600(L) 10,000(L) 14,000(L) . . 45,661 Don Bosco Primary School, Narre Warren ... 75,000(c) 165,000(c) . . 131,300(c) 6,900(c) 363,600(c) 741,800 . . 9,250(L) 11,340(L) 10,000(L) 1,967(L) . . 32,557 St Bernadette's Primary School, The Basin ... . . . . 270,000(c) . . 150,775(c) 626,784(c) 1,047,559 . . . . 5,000(L) 10,000(L) 14,300(L) . . 29,300 St Paul the Apostle School, Nth Endeavour Hills ... . . . . . . . . . . 603,800(c) 603,800 St Michael's School, Berwick ... 2,250(L) 2,030(L) . . 2,000(L) . . . . 6,280 TOTALS ... 441,181(c) 1,186,619(c) 362,714(c) 358,631(c) 333,175(c) 2,166,484(c) 4,848,804(c) 29,341(L) 38,360(L) 36,260(L) 61,000(L) 54,819(L) . .(L) 219,780(L) NOTE: (L) = Grants for library resources. NOTE: (c) = Grants for capital works. The Libraries Element of the Capital Grants Program was discontinued at the end of 1985. Attachment D LA TROBE ELECTORATE Funds Allocated to Non-government Schools under the English as a Second Language (ESL) Program 19811 New arrivals General support 1982 New arrivals General support 1983 New arrivals General support 1984 New arrivals General support 1985 New arrivals General support 1986 New2 arrivals General support $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Holy Family, Doveton... Nil 24,854 Nil 34,225 Nil 44,986 Nil 37,872 6,496 29,034 957 21,200 St Paul the Apostle, Endeavour Hills... Nil 16,838 Nil 19,271 Nil 37,346 Nil 46,082 4,640 48,774 1,914 53,600 St Paul the Apostle (North), Endeavour Hills... Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil 2,000 957 26,800 Total... Nil 41,692 Nil 53,496 Nil 82,332 Nil 83,954 11,136 79,808 3,828 101,600 1. In 1981 the General Support element of the ESL Program was known as the Child Migrant Education Program. 2. Amounts for New Arrivals for 1986 are for the period January-March only. Attachment E ESL FUNDING IN VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 General Support element... 12,159,0001 13,449,000 13,710,000 14,536,000 15,131,000 14,172,000 New Arrivals element... . . 2,600,445 3,007,416 1,887,234 1,718,656 677,5562 1. In 1981, the General Support element of the current ESL program was known as the Child Migrant Education Program. 2. New Arrivals amounts for 1986 are for the period January-March only. (Question No. 4309) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 5 June 1986: (1) On what date in April 1986 did the Australian Trade Commission (ATC) approach a senior serving officer with the intention of filling the post of Senior Trade Commissioner in Milan on a temporary basis. (2) What steps has the ATC taken towards filling this position permanently. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's questions is as follows: (1) I am advised by the Australian Trade Commission that they are unable to state with any certainty the exact date in April on which the approach was made. (2) Apart from advertising the position last December and conducting the subsequent interviews the Australian Trade Commission informs me that no steps have been taken towards filling the position of Senior Trade Commissioner, Milan, permanently. (Question No. 4323) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: (1) What has been discussed at the various meetings of the Tourism Advisory Council Sub-committee. (2) What advice has been given to him by the sub-committee. (3) What has been his response, together with his reasons for his response, to this advice. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) In relation to the Tourism Advisory Council Sub-committee on Industry Matters, informal discussions have been held by the Sub-committee on a range of issues affecting the tourism industry. These discussions have also served to facilitate communication between various elements of the industry on matters of interest. (2) The Sub-committee has provided advice to me on the range of issues discussed. (3) I have noted the advice and have used that advice where appropriate in my discussions and consultations with my Government colleagues. (Question No. 4348) Mr Langmore asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: Does Australia support a nuclear test moratorium; if so, what has been done to urge the United States America to match the Soviet Union moratorium. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Government has been and will continue to be a tireless and vigorous advocate-not least with the United States and the Soviet Union-of the conclusion of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty at the earliest possible time. The Government welcomes any interruption of the nuclear testing programs and has welcomed the Soviet Union's unilateral moratorium on nuclear explosions. The Government agrees that the co-operation of both superpowers is essential if a comprehensive test ban treaty (CTBT) is to be concluded. The Soviet moratorium would be a positive step towards a CTBT if both parties agreed that this was a sensible way of working towards a CTBT. However, this is not the case. The Government's own position is that the most direct path to a CTBT is to address and overcome the outstanding verification problems. This view is supported by the history of the long quest for a CTBT. It is the Government's hope that the United States and the Soviet Union will be able to find some areas of common ground on the testing issue. In this regard the Government has been encouraged by recent developments such as the expert-level discussions between the superpowers on testing issues and the agreement between the Soviet Academy of Sciences and a private American Group-the Natural Resources Defence Council-to monitor seismic activity at the nuclear test sites in each country with seismic facilities located in close proximity to the test sites. (Question No. 4349) Mr Langmore asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: What protest has Australia made at the United States decision to renege on SALT II. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Australia's concern over President Reagan's announcement on 27 May that the United States would in future no longer necessarily be bound by SALT II limits was conveyed in a letter from the Prime Minister to President Reagan on 3 June. Australia's views on this important question were made public in statements by Senator Evans in the Senate on 29 May and 2 June and in an address by the Prime Minister to the NSW State Conference of the ALP on 8 June, when he said: ``The Government has maintained a close and constructive dialogue with the United States on arms control issues. I recently wrote to President Reagan to express Australia's concern at the announcement by the United States Administration of its intention to breach the arms limitations set out in the SALT II Treaty. We attach great importance to compliance with the terms of the SALT II Treaty by both the United States and the Soviet Union. Its numerical limits provide an important measure of predictability as to the strategic nuclear balance. Despite its imperfections, the existing arms control regime is the only available basis from which to proceed, if agreements for significant reductions in the arsenals of the super powers are to be negotiated. Moreover, whatever the basis in fact, the Government sees a risk of a perception developing in Australia, as a result of the U.S. decision, that it is Washington rather than Moscow which is taking the initiative to break out of existing agreed constraints. We understand United States concerns about Soviet compliance. Indeed I had earlier written to General Secretary Gorbachev, informing him of Australia's view that the Soviet Union has a case to answer on specific issues of compliance and urging the USSR in the strongest terms to demonstrate full compliance with the existing agreements and, if necessary, to go out of its way to do so. But for the reasons I have outlined above, we would be very concerned if the United States goes ahead to allow its forces to exceed the SALT II limits and future decisions regarding United States strategic forces were made without reference to the SALT constraints. Our nuclear policies also attach the highest importance to the major nuclear arms control treaty in existence, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and its system of verification, including International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards''. (Question No. 4453) Mr Mildren asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 22 August 1986: Can he indicate how many jobs have been created in the tourist industry in the years 1983-84 to 1985-86? Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Estimates based on the 1981-82 survey of tourist expenditure in Australia conducted by the Bureau of Industry Economics suggest that the number of jobs attributable to tourism has grown from 346,500 in 1983-84 to around 375,000 in 1985-86. A further 25,000 persons who are not included in this estimate could be currently employed in tourism-related construction activities. (Question No. 4456) Mr Moore asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 21 August 1986: (1) Has the Government decided to abolish the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations. (2) If so, what other mechanisms (a) exist or (b) are planned to co-ordinate, examine and act as a forum for the three spheres of government to ensure maximum benefit and minimum duplication. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. The Government introduced legislation in the House of Representatives on 19 August 1986 to abolish ACIR. (2) The Government considers that adequate machinery already exists for effective inter-governmental consultations, without the need for a separate research body. These mechanisms include Premiers' Conferences, the Loan Council, Ministerial Councils, the Constitutional Commission and the Australian Constitutional Convention Council, the Commonwealth Grants Commission, the Inter-State Commission and other Commonwealth-State bodies and committees. Regarding research into inter-government relations, the Government is examining with the States, the Northern Territory and the Australian Council of Local Government Associations the possibility of limited future funding in this area. (Question No. 4465) Mr Reith asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 21 August 1986: As at 1 August 1986 how many persons had (a) applied for and (b) been granted loans under the Assets Test Pensioner Loan Scheme. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) As at 1 August 1986 thirty-eight claims for payment under the pension loans scheme had been received, apart from claims which lapsed or were subsequently withdrawn. (b) Of these, twenty-one had been granted while a further eight were under consideration. (Question No. 4533) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: (1) Has he employed a special Greek consultant or adviser; if so (a) what remuneration is being paid, (b) what travel costs have been incurred by the adviser since his appointment, (c) where has the adviser travelled to and when, (d) who authorised the employment of the adviser, (e) what are the details of the adviser's contract and his terms of reference, (f) for how long has the adviser been employed, (g) from what section of his Department's vote are the funds to pay the adviser appropriated from and (h) are travel costs appropriated from the same funds; if not, from which vote are they appropriated. (2) Was the position advertised; if so, (a) when, (b) where and (c) what was the cost. (3) If the position was not advertised, why not. (4) Is he dissatisfied with the advice given by the Federation of Ethnic Communities Council of Australia; if not, why has he employed a special Greek consultant or adviser. (5) What are Mr Demetri Dollis's qualifications. (6) Did he know or was he aware of Mr Dollis before his appointment. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I have often been assisted by various advisers on ethnic community matters. One of them, Mr Demetri Dollis, chaired an Ethnic Liaison Committee during 1985 to assist me in community consultations on proposed reciprocal social security agreements with other countries. He has since provided me with advice on a part-time basis. (a) Mr Dollis is a member of staff of the Victorian Minister for Ethnic Affairs and no salary is being paid by the Commonwealth. (b) Travel costs incurred by Mr Dollis in 1985-86 were $3,381.20. Travel costs for the current financial year are $6,890.77. (c) Mr Dollis travelled within Australia, between May and October 1985, from his home city of Melbourne to Canberra, Sydney and Adelaide to assist in community consultations. During 1986 he has come from Melbourne to Canberra to attend meetings. He also accompanied a team of Australian officials to Greece from 31 August to 14 September 1986. The purpose of that visit was to enable Australia and Greece to exchange detailed information about each other's social security systems preparatory to decisions being taken on whether to negotiate a reciprocal agreement. (d) Myself. (e) Mr Dollis has no employment contract with the Commonwealth and his terms of reference are to advise me on matters arising in relation to reciprocal social security agreements. (f) See answer to (1). (g) See answer to (1) (e). (h) Vote no. 560/2/14. (2) No position has been created. (3) See answer to (2). (4) I have always found invaluable any advice given to me by the Federation of Ethnic Communities' Council of Australia. However, I have also found it useful at times to obtain additional views in connection with specific programs. This is such a case. (5) Mr Dollis has a Bachelor of Arts degree from Monash University and is undertaking further work towards a Masters degree. His field is political science. He is a member of staff of the Victorian Minister for Ethnic Affairs and has excellent links in ethnic communities with which he has worked for the past 13 years. (6) Yes. (Question No. 4620) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1986: (1) Has the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) ordered payment to an invalid pensioner for a period spent in gaol. (2) If so, is any action on his behalf appropriate. (3) Has he taken any action. (4) What will be the impact upon the payment of this and other classes of benefits and pensions to people in gaol. (5) Does the AAT decision conflict with any existing policies of his Department; if so, how. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. The AAT, in a case concerning an invalid pensioner sentenced to nine months imprisonment, exercised the discretion under what was then sub-section 52 (1) of the Social Security Act. At the time of the initial decision in the case (10 May 1984) that sub-section provided a discretion as to whether or not pension payments should be continued during imprisonment. (2) No. The discretion was of concern to the Government and as from 1 August 1984 the discretion was removed from the Act by amendment (section 135tha (2) refers). (3) See answer 2. (4) None. (5) See answer 2. (Question No. 987) Mr Blanchard asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 8 May 1985: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the United States Navy's plans, as revealed in US Congressional testimony on Department of Defense appropriations for 1985, to deploy 758 Tomahawk nuclear land attack cruise missiles with 200 to 250 kiloton range warheads on US cruisers, destroyers, battleships and attack submarines between 1985 and 1992. (2) If so, does the Government expect that Tomahawk cruise missiles will be deployed on US Pacific Fleet vessels in the above categories. (3) Is the extreme accuracy of Tomahawk cruise missiles as evidenced by their estimated circle error probability (CEP) of 30 metres an indication that they are designed for counterforce theatre nuclear warfighting strategies rather than for the general deterrent purpose of mutually assured destruction. (4) Is he able to say whether the equipping of US naval vessels with large yield long range nuclear armed cruise missiles increases the probability of these vessels being targeted by Soviet Forces. (5) Will the Government seek an assurance from the US Government that Tomahawk cruise missiles will not be introduced to Australian ports and harbours. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am aware of a considerable amount of US Congressional testimony on the US Department of Defense's budget for fiscal year 1985. In the absence of more specific information from the honourable member about the particular evidence to which he is referring, I cannot be certain that we have the same item of testimony in mind. The Government is, however, aware of US plans referred to in such testimony to deploy 758 Tomahawk nuclear land attack missiles by the early 1990's, with 270 planned to be on 106 submarines and 488 on 84 surface ships. (2) Yes. (3) While the land attack variants of the Tomahawk missile are quite accurate, this does not by itself determine the role that might be assigned to these variants of the missile in US military doctrine, or the purpose for which they were designed. In the testimony of RADM Hostettler USN to the US Congress Committee on Armed Services on 14 March 1984 it was stated that the Tomahawk missile was not designed as a first strike weapon but as a second strike weapon. About 80% of the almost 4000 Tomahawk missiles planned by the mid 90s will have conventional warheads. These conventional Tomahawks allow the USN to disperse its naval military capabilities over 190 ships and submarines rather than just its 14 aircraft carriers, and so make those capabilities less vulnerable to pre-emptive attack. If tension should arise between the US and the USSR, the USSR would be less able, and thus less tempted, to attempt a pre-emptive attack on the USN. If conflict should come, the large number of survivable, conventionally armed Tomahawks would allow the USN to fight on with long range conventional weapons even if its aircraft carriers had been put out of action. The conventionally armed Tomahawks thus deter the outbreak of war by providing survivable weapons systems less vulnerable to Soviet pre-emptive attack. The conventional Tomahawks also raise the threshold of the use of nuclear weapons, if conflict should occur, by increasing USN conventional military options. The US has outlined two roles for the nuclear armed Tomahawk. The first is as an assured survivable reserve. The Tomahawk would be able substantially to survive a Soviet `first strike' and so ensure that US forces could not be disarmed by such a strike. The second role is to match the long range naval cruise missiles already deployed by the USSR. As such it allows the US to balance the Soviet capacity for theatre nuclear war and nuclear war at sea. It also allows the US to demonstrate that any Soviet nuclear strike against the USN could be met with retaliation in kind; retaliation which would not necessarily involve escalation and the use of US strategic nuclear forces. Finally, this role ensures that the USSR should not envisage any advantage to itself in initiating a nuclear war at sea. As mentioned above, the accuracy of the land attack variants of the Tomahawk missile is not the sole determinant of their roles. Of equal significance is the fact that they take several hours to reach their target. While this is less important for a fixed target it is most significant for a mobile one-and mobile targets would be the highest priority in any ``counterforce theatre nuclear warfighting'' strategy, referred to in part (3). While the nuclear version of the Tomahawk missile could obviously be used in a nuclear war, its long flight time indicates it was not ``designed'' to facilitate a ``counterforce theatre nuclear warfighting'' strategy, and the Government is satisfied that the US does not have such a strategy. (4) I am not able to comment with any guarantee of accuracy on the targeting doctrines or priorities of the Soviet Union. However, it is probable that Soviet plans in the event of war have long been to attack Western naval forces, irrespective of their armament. The introduction of the Tomahawk missile would not seem likely substantially to change Soviet targeting doctrine in this respect. (5) No. The Government accepts that it is United States practice neither to confirm nor deny whether its vessels are carrying nuclear weapons. (Question No. 2249) Mr Conquest asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 17 October 1985: (1) Is he able to say whether: (a) the Soviet Union has ever accepted the theory of nuclear war prevention known as mutually assured destruction (MAD); (b) the Soviet Union has developed strategic offensive weapons far in excess of what is needed merely to deter the U.S.A.; (c) the Soviet Union has breached the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and developed its own strategic defence program, thus weakening the deterrent capacity of U.S. nuclear forces; (d) MAD is now a theory which poses no menace to the Soviet Union; (e) the Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI) is a response to the fact that the Soviet Union has never accepted the deterrent promises on which SALT I and the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty were based, and (f) Mr Gorbachev's recent campaign in the West against the SDI and his eagerness to resume arms talks is an acknowledgement that SDI counters Soviet Union plans of prevailing over the U.S.A. (2) Does the SDI provide a powerful incentive for mutual and equal nuclear disarmament. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) The Government is not aware of any statement by the Soviet Government formally endorsing the concept of mutual assured destruction (MAD) as a theory of nuclear war prevention. It is, however, aware of statements by Soviet military and political leaders which recognise that both superpowers would be vulnerable to devastating retaliation in the unlikely event of a nuclear war. The most recent of these statements is the section of the joint statement issued by President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev after their meeting in November 1985 that ``a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought''. Moreover, in negotiating the SALT I and II and the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaties both the U.S. and the Soviet Union acknowledged that mutual vulnerability-and hence mutual deterrence-provides a basis for a stable nuclear relationship. (b) What may be needed ``to deter the U.S.A.'' is a question which only the U.S. Government can answer. However, the growth which has taken place in Soviet offensive strategic capabilities in recent years does appear `far in excess' of the requirements of mutual assured destruction. The superpowers themselves seem to recognise that their forces are unnecessarily large. President Reagan has proposed reductions of 50% in strategic forces and this has been accepted in principle by Mr Gorbachev. The Government strongly supports these arms control initiatives. (c) The Government believes that the construction by the Soviet Union of a large phased array radar near the city of Krasnoyarsk raises legitimate questions concerning Soviet compliance with the ABM Treaty. The Government hopes that the Soviet Union will respond to Western concerns and demonstrate its compliance with the relevant provisions of this important Treaty. The Government is aware that the Soviet Union maintains substantial strategic air defence forces and is moving to deploy the maxi-mum number of anti ballistic missile interceptor missiles permitted by the ABM Treaty (that is, 100). As far as the Government is aware the U.S. does not assert that these Soviet deployments weaken the deterrent capacity of U.S. nuclear forces. U.S. retaliatory capability, particularly that contained in its relatively invulnerable submarine based strategic deterrent forces, and the overall balance in offensive forces, are likely to remain effective in deterring the U.S.S.R. from the use of force against Western interests. (d) See (a) above. (e) In an address to the North Atlantic Assembly on 15 October 1985, Mr Paul Nitze, Special Adviser to the U.S. President and Secretary of State on Arms Control Matters, said there were three factors which prompted President Reagan's decision in early 1983 to launch the Strategic Defence Initiative. These were the deterioration in the strategic balance since the signing of SALT I; technological advances since 1972 in areas relevant to ballistic missile defence; and the President's belief that the U.S. should not be content to base its security policy in perpetuity on the threat of offensive nuclear retaliation. (f) The Soviet Union's major reservation about a security framework based on SDI type defensive systems appears more directed towards avoiding any advantage to the U.S. than to any real expectation of ``prevailing over'' the U.S. (2) This remains to be seen. While the Government would welcome balanced and verifiable nuclear disarmament, it considers that it would be preferable for disarmament measures to be negotiated now, thus obviating the massive expenditures involved in developing operational systems of ballistic missile defences. Furthermore, it remains doubtful whether an operational ballistic missile defence system of the type envisaged in the SDI will be practicable and whether the objectives underlying the SDI research program can, therefore, be realized. (Question No. 2521) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 18 November 1985: (1) Does the Minister's Department, or any statutory authority responsible to the Minister, provide grants to organisations operating in the ACT. (2) Do such grants have a requirement that any organisation so funded be registered under the ACT Association Incorporation Ordinance 1953; if so, what steps are taken by the Minister's Department to ensure that the funded organisation has complied with the Ordinance before any grant is made. (3) Does the Minister's Department or statutory authority carry out a search of the register at the ACT Corporate Affairs Commission. (4) If the search discloses a failure to comply with the ACT Association Incorporation Ordinance, what steps are taken to ensure that the matter is remedied by those responsible for the administration of the Ordinance, or the incorporated association. (5) Have all incorporated associations within the ACT funded by the Minister's Department or statutory authority complied with the Ordinance requirements for lodging particulars of financial affairs and balance sheets annually. Mr Duffy —The answers to the honourable member's questions, based in part on advice from the statutory authorities within the Communications portfolio, are as follows: (1) No grants are currently provided to organisations operating in the ACT. (2) Not applicable. (3) Not applicable. (4) Not applicable. (5) Not applicable. (Question No. 3890) Mr Wright asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 2 May 1986: (1) What was the wholesale price of petrol when (a) the Fraser Government came to power in 1975 and (b) the Hawke Government came to power in March 1983. (2) What (a) increases and (b) decreases have taken place in the wholesale price of petrol since 11 November 1975. (3) What is the amount of Federal Government tax or duty on (a) petrol and (b) diesel. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: 1. The answer to this question is contained in the response of 9 April 1986 by the honourable Minister for Science, on my behalf, to the honourable member's Question on Notice (No. 2216) of 16 October 1985. 2. (a) There have been sixty eight separate increases totalling 48.5 cents per litre in the average wholesale price of super grade petrol since November 1975. (b) There have been eight reductions totalling 10.8 cents per litre in the average wholesale price of petrol over the same period. 3. (a) 20.185 cpl. (b) 20.185 cpl. A full rebate of excise paid on diesel is available to eligible primary producers, currently amounting to 20.185 cents per litre, and a partial rebate of 17.797 cents per litre is available for many mining operations. (Question No. 3970) Mr Coleman asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 8 May 1986: Is the Minister able to say how many (a) deaths and (b) injuries have occurred in the OECD nations between 1975 and 1984 in (i) the nuclear power industry and (ii) the coal power industry. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (i) The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) advised on 2 April 1984 that to the best of its knowledge there had not been to that date a radiation-induced death or serious radiation-induced injury at any nuclear power station in OECD member countries. The NEA noted that there had been a few fatalities due to non-radiation causes; for example, falls and steam burns. However, the NEA advised that it did not keep statistics on these `non-nuclear' accidents and it was therefore not in a position to provide detailed information on the number and causes of such accidents in nuclear power stations. (ii) As regards the coal power industry, the International Energy Agency (IEA) does not aggregate statistics on the number of injuries and/or deaths in coal power stations in OECD member countries; consequently, such information is not readily available. Information is available in respect of one OECD country, the United Kingdom, where figures presented to the British Parliament earlier this year indicated that in the UK between 1975 and 1984 there were 387 deaths in the coal mining industry, 83 deaths in the offshore oil and gas industries, and 9 in the civil nuclear industry. None of the 9 deaths in the civil nuclear industry were related to radiological hazards. (Question No. 4017) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 20 May 1986: (1) Have the physical resources of the National Aboriginal Conference (NAC) been accounted for. (2) How many Commonwealth vehicles allocated to NAC members have been returned. (3) What efforts were made to ensure that all vehicles were either returned or accounted for. (4) Which NAC members have failed to return Commonwealth vehicles or other equipment. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Federal Court of Australia appointed Mr W. J. Hamilton as Official Liquidator of the Aboriginal Corporation of the National Aboriginal Conference on 26 July 1985. I am advised that shortly afterwards he arranged for agents to conduct an inventory and valuation of all Corporation assets. The Official Liquidator has reported ``Valuation reports have been received in respect of all asset locations. A number have been prepared on a sight unseen basis, in particular for north Queensland areas in central Northern Territory and north/west Western Australia. These valuations were prepared on the basis of descriptions and photographs provided mainly by local officers of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. The Corporation maintained an asset register and a test has been made to ensure that current asset purchases have been recorded. I am satisfied that this is so. However from reports received from my valuers it would appear that assets which have been disposed of over time had not necessarily been deleted from the asset register and that in some instances there are considerable variations from the physical stocktakes. Further, immediately prior to the cessation of the Corporation, assets were physically transferred to other Aboriginal organisations in their respective localities. In a few instances it has been almost impossible to locate the assets as no records were kept of the transfers.'' (2) 34. (3) I had corresponded at some length with the Secretary-General and Members of the NAC and had instructed Members to either return the vehicle in their possession or arrange to finance its purchase. I had consented to transfer 22 of the original 39 vehicles to various Aboriginal organisations. Since his appointment the Official Liquidator has obtained possession and sold, or has arrangements in place for the sale of, 12 of the 17 outstanding vehicles. He is aware of the whereabouts of the remaining 5 vehicles and acknowledges that it may be necessary for him to take action for recovery. (4) Vehicles have not been returned by Mr J. Stanley, Mr P. Yanner, Mr F. Chulung, Mr A. Lynch and Mr P. Yu. As well, assets in the nature of furniture and equipment are still held by Mr J. Stanley, Mr P. Yu, Mr T. Stevenson and Mr A. Lynch. (Question No. 4265) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 4 June 1986: (1) How many scheduled flights per week from Australia landed at Middle East and Arabian Gulf airports in 1984 and 1985. (2) Which airlines operated these flights and what type of aircraft were used. (3) How many similar flights per week are scheduled for the second half of 1986, which airlines will operate these flights and what type of aircraft are proposed to be used. (4) Will the introduction of the new long-range Boeing 747 aircraft on the ``Kangaroo Route'' progressively reduce the number of Middle East and Arabian Gulf stops and thus reduce the availability of air freight capacity from Australia to these ports; if so, what does he propose to do to overcome this problem. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Twenty scheduled flights per week from Australia landed at Middle East and Arabian Gulf airports in 1984. During 1985, there were twenty landings per week between January and March, twenty one from March to November, and twenty two in December. (2) The airlines which operated these flights and the types of aircraft they used are as outlined in Table 1. (3) Twenty two flights from Australia per week are scheduled to land at Middle East and Arabian Gulf airports in the period July to October 1986. The airlines have not yet filed their timetables for the remainder of 1986. The airlines operating these flights during the period July to October 1986, and the types of aircraft used, are as outlined in Table 2. (4) Six international carriers currently serving Australia have placed orders for long-range B747-400 aircraft. However, these aircraft will not be available before 1989 and it is not yet known whether they will be used on Australian operations. Decisions on utilisation will be a matter for the commercial judgment of the airlines. While it is true that the introduction of these aircraft will offer European carriers the option of operating a one-stop service between Europe and Australia via the Middle East it is important to note that the option is already available to them using existing B747 and B747 ``Combi'' aircraft. While the Middle East remains a commercially viable market it can be expected that airlines will continue to operate services through the region. Table 1 Airline Middle East/Arabian Gulf Airports Landings per week Aircraft used British Airways... Jan-March 1984... Muscat... 5 B747B Abu Dhabi... 1 Bahrain... 1 March 84-Feb. 85... Muscat... 6 Abu Dhabi... 1 March to Nov. 85... Muscat... 5 Abu Dhabi 2 December 1985... Muscat... 5 Abu Dhabi 3 JAT Yugoslav Airlines... 1984-85... Dubai... 2 DC10-30 KLM Royal Dutch Airlines... Dubai... 1 Jan. 84-Apr. 85, B747B Apr.-Dec. 85, B747-EUD Lufthansa... Dubai... 2 Jan. 84-Oct.1985, B747B Oct.-Dec. 85, B747 Combi Dubai... 1 Mar.-Dec. 85, B747 Freighter UTA French Airlines... Bahrain... 1 Jan. 84-Oct. 85, B747-EUD Nov.-Dec. 85, B747B Qantas... Bahrain... 7 Jan.-Nov. 84, B747B Nov. 84-Jan. 85, 5B747B 2 B7477-EUD Feb.-Mar. 85, 3B747B 4B747-EUD Apr.-Dec. 85, 1B747B 6B747-EUD Table 2 Airline Middle East/Arabian Gulf Airports Landings per week Aircraft used British Airways... Muscat... 5 B747B Abu Dhabi... 3 JAT Yugoslav Airlines... Dubai... 2 DC10-30 KLM Royal Dutch Airlines... Dubai... 1 B747-EUD Lufthansa... Dubai... 2 B747 Combi Dubai... 1 B747 Freighter UTA French Airlines... Bahrain... 1 B747-EUD Qantas... Bahrain... 7 B747-EUD (Question No. 4304) Mr Smith asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 5 June 1986: (1) How many job vacancies were filled by the CES in the recent ``Jobhunt'' project conducted in Launceston. (2) How many of the jobs referred to in part (1) were (a) new vacancies notified to the CES during the course of the project and (b) pre-existing vacancies registered with the CES. (3) How many of the jobs filled during the project were for (a) part-time work and (b) full-time work. (4) What was the average proposed duration of all jobs filled in this project. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) 716 (2) (a) 624 (b) 92 (3) (a) 142 (b) 574 (4) Of the 716 positions filled, 361 were permanent vacancies and 355 temporary. For obvious reasons, the average proposed duration of the permanent jobs cannot be calculated; of the 355 temporary vacancies, 351 had a definite duration and the average proposed duration of these was 6.82 staffdays. (Question No. 4332) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: (1) Will he bring up to date the information provided in answer to questions No. 2706 (Hansard, 18 November 1981, pages 3089-90) and part (5) of No. 1065 (Hansard, 31 May 1985, page 3266), concerning (a) financial aspects of the proposed National Rehabilitation and Compensation Scheme, (b) discussions on the scheme with the State governments and the insurance industry and (c) increases in premiums for workers compensation and compulsory third party insurance. (2) Further to his answer to parts (3) and (4) of question No. 1065, can he say (a) what is the result of the Government's examination of the NSW Law Reform Commission's proposals on a Transport Accident Scheme and (b) what response was received from each of the State Premiers to the invitation made by the Prime Minister referred to in the answer. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) On the basis of figures provided in the Office of the Insurance Commissioner's publication ``Selected Statistics on the General Insurance Industry for the year ended 30 June 1985'', the updated figures for 1984-85 are: Workers Compensation Compulsory Third Party $m $m Direct Premiums... 2,410.6 1,222.6 Benefits (including legal, hospital and medical costs)... 1,609.3 1,501.9 Administration expenses and commissions... 269.5 46.8 Separate figures for legal and hospital and medical costs are not published and must be estimated. The estimates given below use the ratios implicit in the reports of the Working Parties of the National Rehabilitation and Compensation Scheme and the actual amounts paid in benefits in 1984-85. This is the procedure used in answers to the honourable member's previous questions on this issue. However, there are some indications that legal and medical costs may have risen at a faster rate than the rise in benefits; if this is so, the following figures may be something of an under-estimate. Workers Compensation Compulsory Third Party $m $m Legal (excluding solicitor/client costs)... 150 250 Hospital and medical... 290 220 (b) see (2) below (c) The percentage increases on premiums between 1982-83 and 1984-85 were: Workers Compensation Compulsory Third Party % % Direct premiums... 31.9 17.6 Earned premiums... 42.7 21.5 2 (a) Following the Government's examination of the NSW Law Reform Commission's proposals on a Transport Accident Scheme the Acting Prime Minister wrote again to the State Premiers stressing the attractiveness of the NSW Law Reform Commission's proposals and noting the financial benefits to the States of compensation reform. The Acting Prime Minister also indicated the Commonwealth Government's disposition to provide limited assistance to States undertaking desirable reforms. 2 (b) All States acknowledged the Prime Minister's letter and indicated any relevant moves towards compensation reform within their jurisdiction. Most States are actively considering proposals for compensation law reform. Victoria has implemented a virtually wholly no-fault workers compensation scheme and has released details of its proposals for a similar reform of transport accident compensation. The Northern Territory already has a fully no-fault transport accident scheme and is in the process of reforming its workers compensation scheme. It is expected that its new ``Work Health'' Scheme will come into operation later this year. In South Australia, legislation currently before the Parliament will, when enacted, have the effect of reforming South Australian workers' compensation arrangements along similar lines. The Law Reform Commission of Tasmania is currently conducting an inquiry into the need for reform of Transport Accident Compensation arrangements in that State. The current Tasmanian arrangements include both no-fault and common law components. The high cost of compensation arrangements and the subsequent pressure on premium levels means that other States are watching these recent developments with interest. (Question No. 4327) Mr Fife asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: (1) Has he received a recommendation from the NSW Government for funds from the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Program or the Australian Land Transport Program to upgrade the Brindabella Road between Tumut and Canberra; if so, will it be approved. (2) When will he next be considering recommendations from the NSW Government for funds to be spent on NSW roads from the (a) Australian Bicentennial Road Development Program and (b) Australian Land Transport Program. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The former New South Wales Minister for Roads, the Hon. R. F. Jackson, wrote to me on 16 May 1983 giving conditional support to a proposal to upgrade the Canberra to Tumut road. His support depended on special Federal funds being made available for the road, over and above programmed allocations. In view of the Federal Government's already substantial commitment to road funding, it was not considered appropriate to provide additional funds for special purposes and the then NSW Minister was so advised. This position still holds. (2) (a) (b) Under both the Australian Bicentennial Road Development and Australian Land Transport Programs a project may be nominated for funding by a State Government at any time. Once a project has been nominated it is given the earliest possible consideration. (Question No. 4406) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) Is he able to confirm Thai reports which indicate that Libya has provided funds and training for Muslim separatists in the Yala, Narathiwat, Patani, Songkhala and Satun provinces of Thailand. (2) Is he able to say whether the Government of Thailand has asked Libya to channel any future aid to Thai Muslims through the Thai Government. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) On 5 June I replied in response to Question No. 3551 from Mr Peacock, that the Australian Government was unable to confirm the accuracy of Thai reports which indicated that Muslim separatists in the south of Thailand have received military training from Libya. The provinces listed in the honourable member's question are all in the south of Thailand. My earlier advice to the House remains unchanged. (2) It is my understanding that in discussions on a range of issues during a visit to Thailand of a Libyan envoy in May, the Government of Thailand indicated that it would appreciate the Libyan Government channelling any assistance to Thai Muslims through the Thai Government. The Thai Government is still awaiting a formal response to this from the Libyan Government. (Question No. 4534) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: (1) What is the job description of the position of Aboriginal Liaison Officer advertised by his Department in The Australian on 31 May 1986. (2) When was the position created. (3) How many other such positions are there in (a) Melbourne and (b) other capital cities. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The duty statement for the position is as follows: ``Provide information and advice to Aboriginal communities and groups on all facets of the Department of Social Security. Exercise powers under the Social Security Act to: (a) Take evidence in connection with claims for pensions and associated allowances. (b) Undertake preliminary investigation of claims for pensions, benefits and allowances. (c) Report and make recommendations in respect of these claims. Liaise with Aboriginal organisations and provide assistance in applying for grants and subsidies. Investigate and report on the need for departmental services and programmes in Aboriginal communities and to contribute to policy development in these matters. Undertake recording of statistical data for the purposes of work control. Undertake survey fieldwork and other investigations in Aboriginal communities as requested by Central Office Research Sections, in particular the Aboriginal Unit. Represent the Department within the Region on Aboriginal Welfare matters and co-ordinate with other departments. Contribute to staff training and development programmes in relation to Aboriginal needs, customs and aspirations.'' (2) 15 May 1986. (3) (a) 2 (b) The number of Aboriginal Liaison Officer positions in each of the other capital cities is as follows: Sydney...3 Brisbane...2 Adelaide...3 Perth...2 Hobart...1 Darwin...1 Canberra...- (Question No. 4541) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: (1) Did any member of the federal Ministry or their immediate family come forward under the social security overpayment amnesty. (2) If so, (a) which benefit or pension was overpaid and (b) for how long. (3) Did the claimant come within the provisions of the amnesty; if not, why not. (4) If so, (a) what amount had been overpaid and (b) what amount would have been paid this financial year had the overpayments continued. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I have been informed by the Secretary of my department that no member of the federal Ministry came forward under the social security overpayment amnesty. He has also informed me that he has no knowledge of any member of the immediate family of a federal Minister coming forward under the amnesty. He points put that his departmental records do not permit him to identify all family relationships of pensioners or beneficiaries. (2)-(4) See answer to (1). (Question No. 4609) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1986: (1) How many prisoners on remand are receiving (a) unemployment benefits and (b) sickness benefits in each (i) State and (ii) gaol. (2) Are any remand prisoners receiving any other pension or benefits; if so, (a) what pension or benefits are being received, (b) how many prisoners are involved and (c) in which (i) States and (ii) gaols is this occurring. (3) What has been the cost of payment for each benefit in (a) 1983, (b) 1984, (c) 1985 and (d) this year to date in each (i) States and (ii) gaol. (4) Was his Department aware of all of these cases before the 10 month review of prisoner social security fraud; if not, how many remand prisoners were found to be receiving an overpayment as a result of the review. (5) How long had each remand prisoner found to be receiving an overpayment been receiving such overpayment and what benefit or pension was involved. (6) In which gaols were these prisoners. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1)-(3) While the Social Security Act does not permit the payment of assistance to persons imprisoned after conviction for an offence, there is no bar to the payment of assistance to prisoners on remand. However, unemployment benefit is terminated on the basis that a prisoner on remand cannot satisfy the work test. Details are not maintained as to the number of prisoners on remand in receipt of the various forms of social security assistance, the expenditure involved or their location. (4)-(5) As explained above, payment of social security assistance, other than unemployment benefit, to prisoners on remand is not inconsistent with the Social Security Act. Details of improper payments which came to notice during the recent project were not categorised between convicted prisoners and prisoners on remand; nor were statistics of each individual period of overpayment retained. (6) See 1-3 above. (Question No. 4610) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1986: How many recipients of Class A, B and C widows' pensions are paid to women in the following categories: (a) a common law wife of a man for at least 3 years before his death, (b) a wife who has been deserted for 6 months, (c) a divorced woman and (d) a woman whose husband has been in prison for 6 months. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: At 27 June 1986, the latest date for which the information sought is available, the following widows' pensions were being paid: Class A Class B Class C (a) common law wife of a man for 3 years prior to his death 857 880 1 (b) wife deserted for 6 months 20,732 13,655 - (c) divorcee 35,215 19,966 - (d) woman whose husband has been in prison for 6 months 258 28 - It should be noted that these figures will, more often than not, reflect the situation as at the date of grant of pension. Later changes in status may not be recorded for statistical purposes as pension entitlement is not affected. For instance a pensioner classified as a deserted wife may in fact have been divorced since the pension was granted but still be recorded as a deserted wife. (Question No. 4611) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1986: (1) Are lump sum, one-off payments to the NZ Department of Social Welfare to be paid in 1986-87 for age pensions, invalid pensions, widows' pensions, supporting parents' benefits and other pension or benefit paid by this Department; if so, in each category of benefit, (a) what amount is to be paid and (b) how is it calculated. (2) What negotiations have taken place or will take place between Australia and NZ in respect of these payments. (3) What is the legislative basis for these payments. (4) Does Australia receive similar payments from NZ; if so, (a) for what benefits and (b) what amounts are received. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The reciprocal social security agreement between Australia and New Zealand which came into force in 1949 provides for New Zealand to: act as the agent of Australia in paying certain Australian pensions and benefits to people going to New Zealand; and seek reimbursement of such payments made on Australia's behalf. These are usually referred to as the ``agency arrangements'' between Australia and New Zealand. With the introduction of general portability of Australian pensions in 1973, the agency arrangements were extended to include portable pensions. The New Zealand Department of Social Welfare (DSW) is Australia's agent in this regard. There is no charge levied for the service. It is expected that, during 1986-87, DSW will submit monthly reimbursement claims totalling about $A6.5m in respect of agency payments. (a) For each category, the estimated amount to be reimbursed in 1986-87 is: $m age pensions...2.9 invalid pensions...0.8 widows' pensions...1.1 supporting parents' benefits...1.7 TOTAL...6.5 (b) The estimates are based on the current numbers of pensioners paid in New Zealand and the average pension rate for each category. (2) A review of operational aspects of the agency arrangements was undertaken in July this year by officers of my Department. The procedures already in place, with some minor changes to clerical and ADP procedures agreed between those officers and DSW officials during the review, continue to provide a satisfactory basis for the agency arrangements. (3) The Social Services (Reciprocity with New Zealand) Regulations and the Social Security Act 1947. (4) Australia is reimbursed for payments my Department makes on behalf of New Zealand under the agency arrangements. However, as NZ benefits are not portable, such payments are restricted to final adjusting payments, for example, of NZ national superannuation or NZ family benefit where the beneficiary has come to Australia to reside permanently. My Department expects to be reimbursed a total of about $4,000 in 1986-87. The Government is aware of the imbalance in amounts paid by Australia and New Zealand and has renegotiated the agreement with New Zealand to include provision for further review of the agreement in three years. This will enable the position regarding the portability of New Zealand benefits to be reassessed and the agreement modified if necessary. (Question No. 4613) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1986: (1) What was the cost of acquiring additional hardware for his Department's computer system in order to implement the assets test. (2) What additional hardware was acquired. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) $1.248m to end of current financial year. (2) Additional computer memory, direct access storage devices and communication equipment. (Question No. 4614) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1986: (1) What is the basis of his Department's agreement with the Social Welfare Research Centre at the University of New South Wales and when was this agreement signed. (2) What are the contractual obligations of the centre and his Department, including the term of the contract. (3) What was the cost of the agreement to the Commonwealth for 1985-86 and what is the estimated cost for 1986-87 and succeeding years. (4) Has the cost of the agreement increased over the term of the contract; if so, what is the basis of the increase. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The basis of the agreement was to provide for the establishment of a Social Welfare Research Centre as a unit of the University of N.S.W. The initial agreement was signed on 22 August 1978. (2) The Commonwealth provides funds to the centre to undertake and sponsor research work on social welfare issues in Australia. A new agreement, signed on 1 November 1984, provides for continued Commonwealth funding for a further five years from 1 January 1985. (3) 1985-86 $636,893. Future years $745,000 (refer to (4)). (4) Yes. Section 7.3 of the agreement provides for adjustment of the Centre's general recurrent grant to be indexed in accordance with Indices of Tertiary Education Costs provided by the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. (Question No. 4616) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1986: (1) What was the cost to his Department of hiring halls and other facilities in 1985-86. (2) What facilities other than halls were hired and for what purpose. (3) What is the projected hire cost for 1986-87. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) $74,681. (2) The Department hires various halls, meeting rooms, etc. throughout Australia for various ongoing and ad hoc purposes such as training and staff development programs, internal conferences, visiting services to pensioners, public meetings, etc. No other facilities were hired. (3) $80,000. (Question No. 4619) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1986: (1) What was the cost of the Ethnic Liaison Committee in 1985-86. (2) Will this Committee continue in 1986-87; if not, why not. (3) If it is continuing, what is its estimated cost in 1986-87. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) $38,091. (2) No. The Committee was formed in May 1985 to assist me in initial consultations with ethnic communities on the Government's proposals on reciprocal social security agreements. The Committee was disbanded after it reported its findings to me in October 1985. (3) See answer to (2). (Question No. 4626) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1986: (1) For what purposes does his Department hire motor vehicles. (2) What is the projected cost of motor vehicle hire for 1986-87. (3) What was the cost in 1985-86. (4) If costs in 1986-87 are expected to be higher than in 1985-86, what is the reason for the increase. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Department of Social Security hires motor vehicles primarily for use by its officers in undertaking field work investigations and social work activities. Other purposes include community liaison, courier and other management support functions. (2) $3,510,000. (3) $3,162,342. (4) The expected increase in motor vehicle hire in 1986-87 is primarily due to an increase in hire charges ($223,000) and the hire of additional vehicles required in 1986-87 for new budget initiatives ($190,000). (Question No. 4627) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1986: (1) What was the cost of providing translation and interpreting services to his Department in 1985-86. (2) What languages were involved. (3) What is the estimated cost of these services in 1986-87. (4) If the expenditure on these services in 1986-87 is estimated to be more than spent in 1985-86, what are the reasons. (5) What additional languages or facilities will be provided in 1986-87. Are these facilities provided by staff of his Department; if not, by whom. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Department expended $526,034 for sessional translation and interpreting services during 1985-86. During 1985-86 the Department also set up a translation unit in Canberra comprising two full time and four part time positions. The estimated salaries cost in 1985-86 was $30,000. (2) Approximately 25 languages are covered by these services and the major languages of demands are Italian, Greek, Serbian, Croatian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Turkish, Macedonian, Spanish and Arabic. (3) The estimated cost of sessional interpreting services in 1986-87 is $996,000. In addition the translation unit is expected to cost $125,000. (4) The reasons for the increase in estimated expenditure include: Budget initiatives with their emphasis on interviewing (estimated at $250,000). Increases in rates following national wage decisions and expected higher usage flowing from the Italian reciprocal agreements. The adoption in October 1985 of a language service policy which states that the Department aims to provide services in languages familiar to individual clients who are not competent in English. (5) Staff with other language abilities including a number of bilingual counter officers are used where possible for document translation and face to face interpreting for clients. In addition the Department has access to the Telephone Interpreter Service. (Question No. 4633) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1986: (1) Will the number of staff in his Department increase as a result of announcements contained in the 1986-87 Budget; if so, (a) by how many, (b) what tasks will be performed by these additional staff and (c) to which areas of his Department will they be allocated. (2) Will additional staff increase the cost of airfares and travelling allowances; if so, (a) by how much and (b) how has the increase been calculated. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (a) The Department's approved average operative staffing level was increased by 670.8 staff years as a result of the 1986-87 Budget. (b) The increase in staff is to cover: processing of benefits for an increased client population; further introduction of STRATPLAN; changes to benefit processing procedures introduced through a number of specific initiatives; various other new initiatives of lesser resource cost. (c) The bulk of the increase has been allocated to the Department's regional office network. (2) Yes. (a) Increased airfare and travelling allowance costs for the additional staff required for the implementation of 1986-87 Budget initiatives have been estimated to be of the order of $0.5m. (b) This increase has been calculated on the basis of past experience with the implementation of similar initiatives. (Question No. 4634) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1986: (1) Are repetitive strain injury (RSI) related absences considered when determining staff levels in his Department. (2) How many hours of RSI related absences are anticipated in 1986-87. (3) What was the corresponding figure in 1985-86. (4) What categories of staff are prone to RSI absences. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. However, the Department of Finance does provide some supplementation of staffing levels for loss of productivity by RSI sufferers. It only covers those RSI sufferers who return to full-time duty but are not fully productive because of limitations placed on them by the Commonwealth Medical Officer. (2) It is not possible to predict the number of hours of RSI related absences in 1986-87. (3) 297,502.71 hours. (4) Of RSI sufferers identified as at 30 June 1986 the breakup by employment category is as follows: Full-time keyboard...47.27% Clerical Administrative...30.93% Clerical Assistant...20.42% Others...1.36% (Question No. 4635) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1986: (1) What projections in respect of the number of beneficiaries have been made for each benefit paid by his Department. (2) What assumptions and other factors have been used to arrive at the projected numbers. (3) What consequent changes have been made to staff levels. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The following numbers of recipients of pensions, benefits and allowances are projected as at June 1987: Age pensioners 1,355,000 Invalid pensioners 375,000 Sheltered employment allowees 10,600 Rehabilitation allowees 3,900 Class A widow pensioners 67,000 Class B & C widow pensioners 82,000 Supporting parent beneficiaries 166,000 Unemployment beneficiaries see note below Sickness beneficiaries (a) 65,000 Special beneficiaries (a) 17,700 Family allowance recipients 2,070,000 Handicapped child's allowances (b) 31,500 Double orphan's pensions (b) 5,300 Family income supplement recipients 32,000 (a) average for year ended 30 June 1987 (b) number of children Estimates of unemployment beneficiaries are made by the Department of the Treasury. It is estimated that the average number of these beneficiaries for the year ended 30 June 1987 will be 595,000. As indicated in the Budget papers, this estimate takes account of the effect of changes in benefit administration which are expected to reduce the average number by about 10,000. (2) In making these projections, the Department's starting point is recent trends. These are projected to the following June and the results so obtained modified to allow for other influences such as demography, policy and administrative changes, possible economic developments and interaction with other income support payments. (3) The Department's approved average operative staffing level for 1986-87 was increased by 334 staff years to cover projected increases in client population numbers. (Question No. 3319) Mr Duncan asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 11 March 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a list of 403 toxic chemicals compiled by the United States Environmental Protection Agency which the Agency says can pose an immediate threat to life and health in the event of an accident at a chemical facility; if so, is he able to list (a) the companies in Australia that handle these chemicals and (b) where they are located. (2) What steps has the Government taken to minimise the prospect of major accidents like that in Bhopal, India. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has prepared a draft list of more than 400 chemicals which are sufficiently toxic to cause immediate acute health problems to nearby populations if released accidentally in significant quantity. The list is a component part of a Chemical Emergency Preparedness Plan for local communities. At present, there is no comprehensive list covering the whole of Australia for chemicals in use, nor of the companies which handle specific chemicals. My Department is compiling an Australian Inventory of Chemical Substances; however, it will not identify directly particular companies handling specific chemicals or the location of the companies. (2) The prevention of chemical emergencies will be facilitated by the Government's announced intention to implement a national chemicals notification and assessment scheme, under which potential hazards of new chemicals will be evaluated in advance of their introduction to Australia and selected chemicals already in use may also be assessed. Under the provision for evaluation of priority existing chemicals, it will be possible to examine data on chemicals to establish potential acute hazards and to recommend appropriate control measures and precautions to avoid accidents. The technical committee on chemicals of the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission has established a working party on chemical information and systems for emergency services which is examining such matters as placarding of chemicals stores, chemical registers for stores and chemical information needs for dealing with chemical incidents. Contingency planning for chemical emergencies is primarily the responsibility of State authorities. A number of States have recently introduced more comprehensive provisions relating to potential accidents involving chemicals, through measures such as placarding of buildings, keeping of registers of chemicals and emergency response systems. The US EPA list has been drawn to the notice of State authorities by my Department. (Question No. 4264) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 4 June 1986: (1) Has it taken three years for the widespread abuse of Australia's social security system by New Zealanders to be detected; if so, (a) why and (b) is this at variance with the position he has maintained on this matter previously. (2) What action does he propose to overcome this abuse and when will it be implemented. (3) Has he discussed this matter with the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs; if not, why not. (4) If he did discuss this matter with the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, what form did the discussions take and what was resolved. (5) What broad agreement did he reach on this matter with his counterpart in New Zealand. (6) What savings will there be to the Australian taxpayer when measures to limit such fraud are implemented. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There is no evidence of widespread abuse of Australia's social security system by New Zealanders. Several pilot studies have failed to reveal this, and to make sure that the social security system is not being abused, my department is conducting a comprehensive survey of New Zealand-born pensioners and beneficiaries. (2) The New Zealand Minister of Social Welfare, Mrs Ann Hercus, and I agreed to revise terms of the current reciprocal social security agreement between our two countries. A draft agreement has been prepared in keeping with the Australian Government's decision to restrict payment of unemployment benefit to people newly arrived from New Zealand. The draft of the revised Australia/New Zealand agreement has now been approved by the NZ Cabinet. Arrangements are in train for the signing and completion of legislative requirements. Implementation is anticipated for early 1987. (3) I have also discussed with my colleague, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the effect on social security matters of the Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement which allows free entry of New Zealanders into Australia. (4) It was agreed that re-negotiation of the reciprocal social security agreement would be the most desirable course of action. (5) See 2 above. (6) Savings have been estimated to be in the vicinity of $5m per year when the new revised agreement comes into effect. These savings do not reflect widespread abuse; they will be made because we have removed a provision whereby New Zealanders could claim unemployment benefit on arrival. (Question No. 4608) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1986: (1) Is his Department likely to incur additional costs or expenditures as a result of the devaluation of the Australian dollar; if so, (a) on what transactions will these currency losses be incurred and (b) what is the estimated total of these losses. (2) Was any action taken to hedge, insure or otherwise minimise these losses; if so, what was it. (3) If no such action was taken, why not. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Department of Social Security is likely to incur additional costs of expenditures as a result of the devaluation of the Australian dollar. (a) Currency losses will mainly be incurred on purchases of computer hardware, though losses will also be incurred in relation to some computer software and services sources from overseas. (b) The estimated total of these losses during financial year 1986-1987 is $12.44m. (2) No action was taken to hedge, insure or otherwise minimise these losses. (3) All purchases which incur losses due to currency fluctuations are made under contracts arranged for the Department by the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services. These contracts invariably specify the prices of goods and services at a nominated exchange rate (usually the rate prevailing at time of tender). Under the contracts, the Commonwealth must reimburse suppliers where they incur losses due to currency movements. A formal process must be used to alter the pricing basis of contracts and the Department has recently instigated a review of the major contracts against which losses are incurred with a view to minimising such losses in future years. (Question No. 4630) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1986: (1) Are commercial bureaux used for data entry and micrographics in connection with his Department's computer system; if so, (a) which bureaux provide these services, (b) why are they used, (c) what payments were made for these services in 1985-86 and (d) what is the estimated cost of these services in 1986-87. (2) What functions or tasks cause workloads which cannot be undertaken by Departmental staff. (3) Did any of the services provided by bureaux relate to the overpayments project; if so, (a) what services were involved and (b) at what cost. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Commercial bureaux services are used for both data entry and micrographics in connection with this Department's computer systems. (a) These services have been provided by the following firms in the past: (i) Data entry: Purdon Computing Services, Commercial Computer Centre Pty Ltd, Keydata Pty Ltd, Drake, Technician International Pty Ltd, Western Personnel Services Pty Ltd. (ii) Micrographics: CMS Holdings Pty Ltd, Data Conversion Corporation Pty Ltd, Microfilm Services of WA. (b) The services were used for the following reasons: (i) Data entry: To overcome peak processing loads, e.g. during testing of new ADP systems prior to going into production; prior to the introduction of Direct Crediting of benefits or as a result of new initiatives; and (ii) Micrographics: To provide copies of up to date information on beneficiaries as a back-up for the on-line systems and for such items as group certificates, electoral rolls and medicare levy exemptions critical to the assessment of benefits by Regional Office staff. (c) Payments made for these services in 1985-86 were: (i) Data entry $138,653, (ii) Micrographics $1,242,096. (d) The estimated cost for these services in 1986-87 are: (i) Data entry $122,500, (ii) Micrographics $1,501,672. (2) The functions or tasks causing workloads which cannot be undertaken by Departmental staff are: (i) Data entry: Bureaux services are used to provide data entry when new ADP Systems are being tested prior to going into production. New Systems tested recently include: The unemployment and sickness benefits system Pensions (age, invalid and widows) system These services are also used for the collation of statistics after surveys of beneficiaries. (ii) Micrographics: Commercial bureaux are used for the production of high volume critical microfiche where equipment is not available in state offices and to provide overnight production. (3) No services provided by bureaux related to the overpayments projects. (Question No. 2551) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 19 November 1985: What is the procedure used in the Minister's Office to respond to petitions referred by the House of Representatives. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Petitions referred by the House of Representatives to my Office are noted and forwarded to the Department of Communications for appropriate consideration. (Question No. 3912) Mr Langmore asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 6 May 1986: (1) Has the Determination of Refugee Status (DORS) Committee returned to him a further determination on the status of five West Irian men who have been on Thursday Island for ten months; if so, what was the determination and what action does the Government intend taking. (2) If not, what are the reasons for the delay and when can a determination be expected. (3) Have any other West Irianese arrived in Australia since June 1985 seeking refugee status or political asylum; if so, how many. (4) Have all arrivals since June 1985 had their claims presented to the DORS Committee; if so, when. (5) Has the DORS Committee made recommendations on any or all of these cases; if so, what were those recommendations and when were they submitted to him; if not, when can recommendations be expected. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (5) A total of eleven Irian Jayans have arrived in Australia since June 1985 and have sought refugee status. All eleven arrivals have had their claims presented to the DORS Committee. Meetings for this purpose were held on 2 October 1985 and 12 June 1986. The first five arrivals were considered at the 2 October 1985 meeting. The further six arrivals were considered at the 12 June 1986 meeting. The DORS Committee has made recommendations to me on each of the eleven Irian Jayan applicants for refugee status. These recommendations are in the nature of advice to me as the Minister responsible for making the decision on the applications. As such, it would not be appropriate to divulge the contents of that advice. Examination of the refugee claims was a complex and difficult undertaking. As I announced on 18 June 1986, I have granted refugee status to two applicants where the facts were clear. The other nine cases were not so clear. I remain of the view that the best long term solution for those nine is for them to return to their homes voluntarily. Also as announced on 18 June, I approved the issue of unrestricted Temporary Entry Permits to all eleven Irian Jayans for a period of six months. Their situation will be subject to review at the end of that time. This decision was taken to allow all matters relating to their long-term future to be further explored. The Government's decision that all persons arriving in Australia from our near neighbours, in circumstances such as those of the Irian Jayans, will not be allowed to stay in Australia permanently, remains in force. (Question No. 4253) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 4 June 1986: (1) What is the current level of tariff protection for canned pineapple. (2) Is it a fact that the application of a fixed 5 per cent tariff preference for developing countries will mean almost all pineapple imports into Australia will have an effective tariff rate of 5 per cent which is below the level considered by the Industries Assistance Commission to be appropriate for maintaining the viability of the Australian industry; if not, why not. (3) Will he maintain an effective tariff rate of 10 per cent for canned pineapple. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) As from 1 July 1986 the general rate of tariff applying to imports of canned pineapple is 10 per cent and from that date the revised system of tariff preferences resulted in a developing country rate of duty of 5 per cent. (2) Developing countries supply most pineapple imports to Australia and therefore the tariff rate of duty at 5 per cent is below the 10 per cent general rate recommended by the Industries Assistance Commission in its December 1982 report `Canning Fruit'. However, in introducing the developing country preference margin the Government believed that the competitiveness of Australian industries would not be seriously affected. (3) The normal procedure in regard to assistance is that if the canned pineapple, or any other industry, considers that imports from developing countries or any other source are causing significant difficulties, then they should provide to the Government details to support their views. Any such information provided will be examined speedily with the objective of a reference being sent to the Industries Assistance Commission for inquiry and report on the assistance needs of the industry. The Government is in the process of forwarding a reference to the Industries Assistance Commission on the question of assistance for the fruits and fruit products industries, and the pineapple industry situation will be addressed within this inquiry. (Question No. 4267) Mr Milton asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 4 June 1986: (1) Further to his reply to question No. 2763 (Hansard, 30 April 1986, page 2822) (a) who made the Japanese police report available to Mr A. A. Higgie, the then Acting Assistant Secretary of Operations Branch 2 who wrote the hand written memorandum referred to in part I of that question and (b) under what authorisation was the report made available. (2) Why was the Japanese police report referred to by Mr Higgie never placed on Professor Hidaka's file. (3) Why did Mr Higgie refer to a report that was not part of the information used by his Department to assess Professor Hidaka's application to visit Australia. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (3) No report from the Japanese police was ever made available at any time either to the Minister of the day or to departmental officers. For this reason I indicated in my earlier answer to question No. 2763 that there has never been a report from the Japanese police held on any of the departmental files on Professor Hidaka or his wife. To my knowledge no such report was made available to the departmental officer who wrote the memorandum referred to in part (1) of question No. 2763. (Question No. 4350) Mr Langmore asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: (1) How many immigrants arrived from South Africa in each of the years 1980 to 1986 to date. (2) How many were (a) white and (b) black. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Total Settler Arrivals by Country of Last Residence for South Africa for the following financial years are as follows: 1979-80...3,092 1980-81...3,393 1981-82...3,518 1982-83...3,091 1983-84...1,775 1984-85...1,679 1985-86...p3,600 (p) preliminary figures subject to revision (2) Statistical data are not collected on the basis of racial stock or colour. (Question No. 4542) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: (1) What constant computer cross checks are made by his Department with other Government databanks as referred to in his news release BLH 47/86. (2) What (a) governments and (b) other departments are involved. (3) What databanks are checked and what is the basis of the checking. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (3) I do not propose to provide the information requested as it may place in jeopardy aspects of the Department's fraud prevention measures. I am, however, prepared to arrange a private briefing of the honourable member on the strict understanding that the processes will be kept confidential. (Question No. 4545) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: (1) What changes are proposed to (a) Commonwealth administration as it affects the pig industry and (b) Commonwealth funding of pig industry activities. (2) Have any such changes been discussed with organisations representing producers; if so, what was the outcome of these talks. (3) If no consultations have been initiated with the industry, why not. (4) Is the Government considering or has it implemented a proposal to increase pig producer levies; if so, what are (a) the purpose of these levies and (b) the proposed increases. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Legislation is currently being prepared for introduction this session to establish an Australian Pork Corporation (APC), an Australian Pork Corporation Selection Committee (APCSC) and an Australian Pig Industry Policy Council (APIPC). The APC, which will consist of an independent chairperson, five members selected because of their expertise relevant to the functions of the Corporation and a Commonwealth Government member, will replace the existing Pork Promotion Committee (PPC). As well as taking over the powers and functions of the PPC in relation to the promotion of Australian pig meat both domestically and overseas, the APC will be able to involve itself, on behalf of the industry, in initiatives designed to improve the marketing and export of Australian pigs and pig meat. Examples of such initiatives are Computer Aided Livestock Marketing (CALM) and the development of a national livestock selling language, AUS-MEAT. The new APC will be able to examine such schemes and use its commercial judgment as to whether they are of value to the pig industry and whether or not any producer funds should be contributed to their development. Should the Corporation consider it appropriate it will also be able to take action to improve the production and marketing of pig meat in Australia. The APC will have no powers to involve itself in acquisition or trading of pigs or pig meat. The APCSC which will consist of an independent chairperson, two members nominated by the Australian Pork Producers' Federation (APPF) and one member nominated by the National Meat Processors' Association (NMPA), will be responsible for selecting and nominating the five members of the APC to be appointed because of their knowledge of or experience in areas relevant to the operations of the Corporation. These are: The production of pigs The production, processing or export of pork or the export of pigs; or Marketing and business management. The APIPC is being established as a forum to advise Government on matters affecting the well-being of the industry that, in the opinion of the Council require investigation or action by the Commonwealth or should be referred to the Australian Agricultural Council. The APIPC will be made up of members from a broad cross section of the industry. These will be: An independent chairperson The President and Senior Vice-President of the APPF The President of NMPA The Chairperson of the National Smallgoods Council The President of the Stockfeed Manufacturers' Association of Australia The Chairperson of the APC The Chairperson of the Pig Research Council (PRC). (1) (b) The activities of the three bodies will be financed by a levy on all pigs slaughtered in Australia for human consumption. (2) The above changes are being introduced at the request of, and following extensive consultations with the APPF. The APPF has publicly supported the proposed changes. (3) See (2) above. (4) I am aware that the PPC is currently seeking industry support for an increase of 20 cents to $1 per pig, in the promotion portion of the pig slaughter levy. As yet I have received no request for the increase. This increase is designed to allow the PPC to maintain its level of promotion at a time when costs are increasing and to finance increased promotion of processed pork products. I am also aware that the PRC is seeking industry support for an increase of 10 cents, to 30 cents per pig, in the research portion of the pig slaughter levy. As yet I have received no request for the increase. I understand the purpose of the increase is to maintain the current research programme and finance new initiatives in accordance with PRC's research and development plan. Additionally some increase in the levy can be expected to finance the activities of the new APC, APCSC the APIPC but these are not expected to exceed 10 cents per pig. However, should the APC decide to contribute money to CALM and/or AUS-MEAT on behalf of pig producers, further increases could be expected. (Question Nos 4550 and 4551) Mr Blunt asked both the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 17 September 1986: Is registration with the Commonwealth Employment Service the only evidence of unemployment accepted by his Department; if not, what other evidence is accepted. Mr Howe —As indicated above, the honourable member asked identical questions of both the Ministers for Employment and Industrial Relations and Social Security. With the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations' concurrence, the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No. Under current practice my Department requires a person to be registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service to assist in establishing that he or she is unemployed, capable and willing to undertake suitable work and taking reasonable steps to obtain work. Additionally, unemployment is established by confirming that fact with the client's previous employer and through a signed statement made by the client that he or she is unemployed. (Question No. 4553) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 17 September 1986: (1) How many workers involved in the Robe River dispute are on unemployment benefits. (2) When did each person (a) apply and (b) receive his or her first payment. (3) How many applications were denied. (4) Which offices of his Department dealt with the applications. (5) Was he or his office involved with the applications. (6) Is his Department entitled to view the offer of employment from the management as unsuitable; if not, will he act to withdraw the benefits from the Robe River employees. (7) Are all claimants for unemployment benefits registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service. (8) Were extra staff required to process these claims; if so, will he provide details of (a) how many personnel were required, (b) their grades, (c) where they were relocated from, and (d) the cost of their (i) wages and overtime, (ii) travel allowances and (iii) airfares. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Robe River dispute terminated on 31 August and workers returned to work on 1 September. Accordingly, unemployment benefit is not being paid except in relation to persons who moved to other parts of the State or country. (2) See (1) above. (3) Five. (4) South Hedland. (5) No. (6) and (7) See (1) above. (8) Yes. (a) Three. (b) Two Clerical Administrative Class 5. One Clerical Administrative Class 2/3. (c) Albany; Mandurah; Fremantle. (d) (i) Wages $3801.15; Overtime $444.68. (ii) $3608.70. (iii) $1465.20. (Question No. 4554) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 17 September 1986: (1) What was the cost of placing the 2 column x 22 cm advertisement for a Typist Grade One in the Daily News on 30 July 1986. (2) Is it usual to place an advertisement of this size for a position with a salary range of $14,541 to $15,465. (3) How many responses were received. (4) Was this vacancy listed with the local Commonwealth Employment Service; if not, why not. (5) If the vacancy was so listed, how many persons were referred. (6) Was this the largest positions vacant advertisement to appear in the Newspaper that day. (7) Was an advertisement of this size necessary. (8) Will he review future advertisements; if so, what changes will he propose. (9) Will he supply a list of all newspapers in which this advertisement appeared, providing the (a) dates on which the advertisement appeared, (b) total cost and (c) number of responses in each region. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) $115. (2) This is the usual size for advertisements of this nature. The advertisement was not for a single vacancy but to establish an order of merit for future typist vacancies. (3) 33. (4) Yes. (5) It is not possible to identify how many applicants were referred from the CES. Applications are sent direct to the Department and do not normally indicate whether the applicant became aware of the vacancy through the CES. (6) Yes. (7) Yes (see 2). (8) Decisions on whether a position should be advertised in the Press are made on a case by case basis consistent with Public Service Board Guidelines. Decisions are made taking into account costs and the benefits that are expected to accrue. (9) This position was only advertised in the Daily News on 30 July 1986. (Question No. 4555) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 17 September 1986: (1) What was the cost of placing the 2 column x 27 cm advertisement for a Typist Grade One in the Northern Star on 30 July 1986. (2) Is it usual to place an advertisement of this size for a position with a salary range of $14,541 to $15,465. (3) How many responses were received. (4) Was this vacancy listed with the local Commonwealth Employment Service; if not, why not. (5) If the vacancy was so listed, how many persons were referred. (6) Was this the largest positions vacant advertisement to appear in the Newspaper that day. (7) Was an advertisement of this size necessary. (8) Will he review future advertisements; if so, what changes will he propose. (9) Will he supply a list of all newspapers in which this advertisement appeared, providing the (a) dates on which the advertisement appeared, (b) total cost and (c) number of responses in each region. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) $112. (2) This is the usual size for advertisements of this nature. The advertisement was not for a single vacancy but to establish an order of merit for future typist vacancies. (3) 52. (4) Yes. (5) It is not possible to identify how many applicants were referred from the CES. Applications are sent direct to the Department and do not normally indicate whether the applicant became aware of the vacancy through the CES. (6) Yes. (7) Yes (see 2). (8) Decisions on whether a position should be advertised in the Press are made on a case by case basis consistent with Public Service Board Guidelines. Decisions are made taking into account costs and the benefits that are expected to accrue. (9) This position was only advertised in the Northern Star on 30 July 1986. (Question No. 4584) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 18 September 1986: (1) Have reviews been undertaken of the unemployment, sickness and other benefits paid to (a) individuals by the (i) Port Hedland and (ii) Geraldton offices of his Department and (b) individuals in respect of whom `bulk' payments are made under the communal scheme operating at (i) Jigalong and (ii) Wiluna, respectively. (2) If so, (a) when was each review undertaken, (b) what were the results, (c) were any benefits consequently stopped or modified, (d) were any prosecutions initiated and (e) will he provide me with a departmental briefing on these reviews. (3) If any benefits were stopped or modified, what (i) were the details of the changes made and (ii) were the amounts involved. (4) If any prosecutions were initiated, what are the details. (5) If no reviews have occurred, will he give an assurance that no duplication in the provision of benefits occurs, if not, will he initiate a review. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) The Department's normal review practices have been and are being undertaken at the South Hedland and Geraldton offices. No special reviews have been undertaken. (b) Payments made under the Community Development Employment Program (CDEP) to the Aboriginal communities at Jigalong and Wiluna are made by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. When a community decides to participate in that program, a payment in lieu of unemployment benefit is made for eligible persons and unemployment benefit ceases to be paid. (2) to (5) See (1) above. (Question No. 4623) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1986: (1) What is the estimated cost of his Department providing details of its services and the benefits available through its offices to the public by means of leaflets, publications and other means in 1986-87. (2) What was the cost of providing this information in 1985-86. (3) What are the titles of the publications and details of the other methods used by his Department to convey this information to the public. (4) Will he supply a copy of each item to me. (5) Are additional leaflets, publications and facilities planned for 1986-87; if so, what are the details. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The estimated cost of my Department's National Information Program for the 1986-87 financial year is $2,270,000. (2) The cost of the National Information Program for the 1985-86 financial year was $2,005,309. (3) Publications are prepared by each State administration as well as by the central administration in Canberra. Those prepared by the central administration (Canberra): Leaflets: Age pension Invalid pension Widow's pension Supporting parent's benefit Carer's pension Taking your pension overseas Rates of payment-pensions Rates of payment-benefits Introducing direct deposit (a guide to the new way you will get your Social Security payment) Unemployment benefit Unemployment benefit-your rights and obligations Sickness benefit Special benefit Compensation for Commonwealth Government Employees and members of the Defence Force Introducing direct deposit for unemployment benefit, sickness benefit and special benefit Handicapped child's allowance Help for families (family allowance, family income supplement, orphan's pension) Pocket rates card Mobility allowance Rehabilitation allowance Perhaps Social Security can help you What's in your file? Your appeal rights under FOI Reviews and appeals Family income supplement Young homeless allowance Social Security and school leavers Note: Some of these leaflets are also available in other languages. Booklets: Glossary of Social Security and welfare terms (five versions: Italian, Polish, Vietnamese, Greek and Turkish) Publications: Department of Social Security Annual Report Annual Report of the Commissioner of Employees' Compensation Worker's compensation legislation in Australia Social Security Journal Those prepared by New South Wales: Leaflets: Worker's compensation and sickness benefit (14 languages) Benefits for former prisoners Income support for primary producers Which office is your office in the Hunter? Services for lone parents (for a number of offices) Social Security is here to help you? (Fairfield office-four languages) Information for Aboriginals Separate locality leaflets available for many regional offices Booklets: Assets test guide More help for pensioners Your regional office locality leaflet (a guide to preparation and production) Posters: Going overseas to live (incorporates eight languages) Help for working families (English and Italian) Your right to appeal DSS information-ask here Going places-(a guide to concessions) Videos: The Social Security story Social Security-pensions, benefits and allowances Other: Aboriginal services calendar `DSS helps' display poster Those prepared by Victoria: Leaflets: The effect of study on unemployment benefit How to use our office (Box Hill, Caulfield, Sunshine, Bendigo City, Loddon-Campaspe, Morwell, South Melbourne and Shepparton locality leaflets) How to use our services (North Melbourne locality leaflet) Local services and resources for lone parents (Box Hill) Local welfare services and resources (Ringwood) If you're unemployed `Stop read this first' (Shepparton, Lalor, Box Hill) Unemployment benefit information (Wendouree, Bendigo City, Loddon-Campaspe) North Melbourne Social Security office Booklets: How to use your concession card (an amalgamation of more help for pensioners and services and concessions for the unemployed) Assistance for lone parents Help yourself (Mildura) Books: Access manual Community resources guide Posters: Social Security cards South Melbourne regional office Family income supplement (Belmont, Corio, Geelong, Lalor, Footscray, Richmond, St Kilda and Newport) Corio regional office Camperdown visiting service (Belmont) Maryborough visiting service (Wendouree) Sunshine regional office North Melbourne regional office Social Security visits Melton (Sunshine) Information bulletins: Interpreter services in regional offices Assurance of support Information for people leaving prison Health care card and concessions available (Warrnambool) Unemployment benefit information sheet for school leavers (Coburg, Oakleigh, Sunshine, Peninsular) Changes to pensions, benefits and allowances (November 1985-May 1986) Family income supplement-income test (May 1986) May rates of payment increases Assistance to new arrivals in Australia Those prepared by Queensland: Leaflets: More help for pensioners Work organisation trials `Here's our counter plan' (three languages) Regional office cards (five versions) Family income supplement (two versions-three languages) Stepping out (for school leavers) Invalid pension-claim guide Sickness benefit-claim guide Help for people with disabilities Information notices: Interpreter services at regional offices (two languages) Wacol Migrant Centre-general Social Security information (five languages) Handbills: Quick reference cards (for regional offices) Regional office location and services (three versions) Posters: How to claim invalid pension Social Security can help you Family income supplement (two versions-eight languages) Regional office boundary maps (five versions) Sickness benefit Displays: Migrants-Social Security information (twelve languages) Family income supplement Chermside/Stathpine-Chermside regional office Roma and Gympie-Aboriginal seminars Videos: `Moving'-for Aboriginal units on change of address procedures Other: Ethnic radio tapes (eleven languages) Media articles-Social Security payments (thirteen languages) Regional access manuals (two versions) Stepping out-(overhead transparencies) Pack of cards (four)-information on community services Those prepared by South Australia: Leaflets: Social Security payments for people leaving prison Social Security regional offices in South Australia (separate leaflets are also available about each regional office in South Australia) Information for migrants and refugees in the Whyalla area Health care for Aboriginal people on a pension Health care for Aboriginal people on unemployment benefit, special benefit or a low income Health care for Aboriginal people on sickness benefit Information for Aboriginal people in South Australia about Social Security payments and other services Local services in the Norwood area Local services in the Enfield area Booklets: Help for people on low incomes and pensions 1986 Information sheets: Small changes-information from Social Security Reciprocal Agreement Veterans' Affairs information The effect of study on unemployment benefit Displays: Health days Career seminars Community seminars Those prepared by Western Australia: Leaflets: Australia and the United Kingdom-pension arrangements Information for lone parents in Western Australia Options (information for women on widow's pension and supporting parents) Postponement of unemployment benefit The effect of study on unemployment benefit Unemployment benefit for New Zealanders Other things you need to know (a guide to services for the unemployed) Locality leaflets for regional offices About your unemployment benefit Help for discharged prisoners A guide for new migrants Contacting Social Security De facto relationships and Social Security payments What you should know (a guide for recently bereaved pensioner spouses) Social Security and school leavers Who are you? (Information on identity procedures) A roof over your head (information on rent allowance and other accommodation assistance) Help (information for people who are ill or disabled) Health and concession cards Booklets: More help for pensioners An introduction to Social Security (a handbook for social work and welfare students) Posters: Family income supplement (two versions) Health and concession cards (mini poster) Sickness benefit Carer's pension Other: A guide to Department of Social Security payments (Chart) Big blue book access manual K10 Social Studies school syllabus resource book TIS cards (information in nine languages on accessing the telephone interpreter service for Social Security enquiries) Aboriginal liaison officer visiting cards Those prepared by Tasmania: Leaflets: More help for pensioners Social Security Appeals Tribunal Domestic violence Handicapped child's allowance Booklets: Manual for intermediaries Posters: Know your Social Security cards Freedom of information Those prepared by the Northern Territory: Leaflets: Darwin regional office Casuarina regional office Katherine regional office Alice Springs regional office Nhulunbuy district office Tennant Creek district office Social Security appeals tribunal Remote area allowance Sickness benefit/Worker's compensation Special benefit for migrants Social Security payments for people leaving prison Booklets: More help for pensioners N.T. Posters: Handicapped child's allowance (For Aboriginal communities) Aboriginal liaison officer in the top end Aboriginal liaison officer in the Katherine region Aboriginal liaison officer in the Tennant Creek region Aboriginal liaison officer in Central Australia Videos: Northern Territory unemployment benefit. How to claim Family allowance/split cheques (Yulnga Matha/Aboriginal language) Aboriginal liaison officer unit in the Top End Other: Calenders/Social Security information (for Aboriginal communities) Those prepared by Australian Capital Territory Regional Administration: Leaflets: Social Security: ACT Regional Administration More help for pensioners in the ACT Other material used by my Department to convey information to the public include: Media advertising Newsletters Community service radio and SBS tapes Seminars Information articles used by media (4) I will supply a copy of each leaflet and publication prepared by my Department's central administration. (5) The following is a list of additional leaflets, publications and facilities presently planned for 1986-87 by the central administration in Canberra: `Reciprocal Social Security Agreement between Australia and Italy: a Guide' (explanation of operation of reciprocal agreement bi-lingual) Conspectus (Workers compensation legislation in Australia) Glossary of Social Security and Welfare Terms (Croatian, Arabic, Chinese, Macedonian, Khmer and Serbian) Information is not presently available about additional publications planned by State administrations for the 1986-87 financial year as most of these are produced as required. (Question No. 4632) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1986: Has the implementation of Stratplan caused an increase in staff requirements and costs for 1986-87; if so, (a) what additional staff are required, (b) what are their job descriptions and (c) what is the cost of employing the additional staff. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes. (a) 276 staff years (ASL). (b) The additional staff will perform a number of functions as set out below: Computer Centre Staff (35 ASL)-The introduction of STRATPLAN has significantly increased the functions undertaken in Computer Centres and the additional staff are required to operate new computer and communications equipment. Regional Hardware Controllers (89 ASL)-Regional Hardware Controllers are required to operate mini computer installations at either Regional Offices or State Headquarters or in Central Office. Regional Hardware Controllers are provided in accordance with the Department of Social Security (Introduction of STRATPLAN and Associated ADP Developments) Agreement 1984. Regional Systems Administrators (57 ASL)-Regional Systems Administrators are provided in Regional Offices to co-ordinate the STRATPLAN implementation and then subsequently to manage all the ongoing ADP operational activities in the office. STRATPLAN Management (2 ASL)-Additional staff are required to assist with STATPLAN implementation in Western Australia. Trainers (5 ASL)-These additional staff will provide a range of training courses to Departmental staff as part of STRATPLAN implementation in Western Australia. State Headquarters Support Staff (25 ASL)-State Headquarters support staff provide a range of technical support to user installations including problem diagnosis and rectification, software installation and ADP Security. Rest Breaks (41 ASL)-Additional resources are required to provide for rest breaks for keyboard staff as included in the Department of Social Security (Introduction of STRATPLAN and Associated ADP Developments) Agreement 1984. Training Relief (22 ASL)-Additional resources are needed to provide relief from staff undergoing STRATPLAN training away from their work place. (c) $7.3m.