Thursday, 9 October 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I inform the House that yesterday the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) drew to the attention of the House the fact that a photograph had been taken in the gallery. The two gentlemen concerned were members of the West German Parliament and were unaware that they could not photograph in the House. I have taken the appropriate action to get the return of the film. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(10.02) —I move: That, unless otherwise ordered- (1) The House shall, at its rising on Friday, 10 October 1986, adjourn until Tuesday next at 2 p.m., and (2) the House then meet for the despatch of business in accordance with the normal 2-weekly cycle as set down in the sessional orders. This motion deals with the fact that we are now in a three-week session and it will put matters in order for the next two weeks. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —Madam Speaker, before I move notice No. 2, I seek leave to amend the notice to clarify that the position that both parts (1) and (2) of the notice are meant to apply to the sitting on Wednesday, 15 October 1986. Leave granted. Mr YOUNG —I move: That so much of the Standing Orders, as amended by sessional orders, be suspended as would prevent on Wednesday, 15 October 1986- (1) the routine of business being as follows, unless otherwise ordered: 1. Notices and orders of the day. 2. Questions without notice (at 3.15 p.m.). 3. Presentation of papers. 4. Ministerial statements, by leave. 5. Presentation of petitions. 6. Matter of public importance. 7. Notices and orders of the day. (2) (a) the Speaker proposing the question-That the House do now adjourn-at 10.15 p.m.; (b) the Speaker interrupting the debate at 11 p.m., and (c) a Minister requiring that the debate be extended until 11.10 p.m. This motion will allow the Parliament to facilitate the functions that will be put on for the visit of the Indian Prime Minister. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 8 October, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Beale had moved by way of amendment: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not opposing the 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.' Mr BEALE(Deakin)(10.04) —At the adjournment, the House was discussing the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Amendment Bill, which seeks to give effect to certain arrangements agreed at the Loan Council meeting held on 13 June 1986 for the payment of certain moneys in interest-free capital grants to the States as part of their Loan Council programs for the current year and the prepayment of certain funds for next year, and the alteration of the amounts the States and the Northern Territory may nominate from their approved borrowing programs for public housing in 1986-87. To this the Opposition moved an amendment, the effect of which was to condemn the Government for pursuing incompetent economic and tax policies which have resulted in a continuing high level of interest rates and 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 Opposition is moving this amendment because we believe that the Government's economic policies have failed. In an unbelievable swanning around the world, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) is trying to tell other Western countries that the performance of the Australian economy has been better than the performance of the economies in those other countries. Yet in the past few years he has presided over the Australian economy, during which time we have suffered the greatest fall in the value of our currency in our history. Real interest rates are several times higher than those of our trading partners. We have a balance of payments crisis, with a deficit of about $1.25 billion a month. We have the highest level of Federal taxes in our peacetime history. We have an inflation rate several times that of our trading partners. Unemployment in Australia is trending up while unemployment in the economies of our trading partners is trending down, and we have a tax regime that has encumbered Australians with the most complex and discordant legislation on fringe benefits tax and capital gains tax. Referring to the fringe benefits tax the Daily Telegraph this morning reported having conducted a poll, the effect of which was to find that only 15 per cent-- Mr Robert Brown —I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am reluctant to take this point of order, but it is clear that the subject matter with which the member is now dealing has no possible relevance to this Bill. Mr BEALE —Have a look at the amendment. Mr Robert Brown —Further to the point of order; that was precisely the second point I was about to make. It is not appropriate for Opposition members to take advantage of the opportunity to move an amendment in such a way to legislation of this kind simply to provide themselves with a vehicle for departing from the essence of the legislation. Quite clearly, that is the tactic Opposition members have chosen to adopt, and it is not appropriate. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I appreciate the thought the honourable member for Charlton has given to this matter, but the amendment has been moved and the member concerned has the right to speak to it. Mr BEALE —This morning's Daily Telegraph is reported as having conducted a poll, which shows that only 15 per cent of respondents to the poll believe that the Government should continue with the fringe benefits tax. This contrasts sharply with the assertions by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) yesterday that the majority of Australians favour this tax. Without wishing to dwell on the fringe benefits tax, let me say, as has been said before, that the Opposition in government will repeal the fringe benefits tax lock, stock and barrel. Government economic policies have failed because, firstly, there have been no real cuts in spending and government functions. In fact, taxes increased in the last Budget. Taxes on milk increased, as did taxes on citrus products and on petrol; the Medicare levy also increased. Secondly, interest rates are still far too high to encourage the necessary investment for the private sector to recover. Thirdly, personal taxation levels are still far too high. Fourthly, government debt is still growing; it increased by a further $3.5 billion in the Budget. Fifthly, consumption is still growing faster than production. Sixthly, the Government's wages policy is in disarray. Mr Hodgman —It is in tatters. Mr BEALE —Yes, it is in tatters. Accord mark 1 went out the window, now we have accord mark 2 and the newspapers are ablaze with stories of accord mark 3 and what that will mean. The Government has no idea where it is going on wages policy. Seventhly, our overseas debt continues to rise, putting further pressure on our productive sector and increasing inflationary pressures. The Government must face the fact that it must be more export oriented. To encourage domestic investment it must reduce personal taxation, it must reward for effort and provide incentives to the citizens of Australia to go out and create wealth for us all. The Government must abolish its new punitive taxes-the capital gains tax and the fringe benefits tax-which have the effect of discouraging investment. It must reduce interest rates and in order to do that it must curtail further the growth of its expenditure. It must make its wages policy more flexible. It must provide a framework to bring our wages into line with those of our overseas competitors and it must curtail the use of restrictive work practices. It is worth noting that the Prime Minister is a very late convert to getting rid of restrictive work practices because it was he, in his time as President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, who was responsible for introducing many of those practices. The Government must do something about demarcation disputes which sap our productive effort to no real effect. It must provide a framework to improve the quality and the price of our exports in order to resolve our damaging current account problem. This Government has introduced policies which are having a dramatic effect on housing. The housing package is falling apart. On 2 April the Prime Minister promised that there would be 135,000 housing starts in the current year. In June the Indicative Planning Council, which is the Government's advisory body on housing, said that there would not be 135,000 starts as the Prime Minister had promised, there would only be 130,000. Last week the Indicative Planning Council, in its report to the Australian Housing Council, advised that housing starts this year would be between 120,000 and 125,000 and it chose the median level of 122,500. Mr Hodgman —Another broken promise. Mr BEALE —As my colleague the honourable member for Denison says, another broken promise by this Government which is noted for its broken promises. It promised that there would be no capital gains tax, it promised that interest rates would come down and it promised 135,000 housing starts in the current year and we are now to have at least 12,500 fewer housing starts than the Prime Minister promised on 2 April. The Prime Minister also said when he was making that promise that for each 10,000 fewer starts there would be a loss of 15,000 jobs. Now that we are losing 12,500 starts that means that there will be about 20,000 fewer jobs in the housing industry than there would have been had the Government met its target of 135,000 starts. To put that in perspective, it means that the housing industry will have about $1 billion less activity in the current year than it would have had if the Government had met its promise. I wish to quote from `Housing Industry Prospects for 1986-87', the paper prepared for the Australian Housing Council by the Indicative Planning Council. It says: The recovery over the course of the year is weaker than forecast in the June Report . . . and, as a consequence, total commencements for 1986-87 are forecast to be lower at between 120,000 and 125,000. It also says that the gross domestic product is forecast to grow by 2 1/4 per cent for the year and that the inflation rate in 1986-87 will be maintained largely by the flow-on effects of the depreciation of the Australian dollar. The assumptions on which the Indicative Planning Council is basing its forecast of 122,500 starts are suspect. There is not a responsible economic commentator who does not think the forecast of growth in the gross domestic product of 2 1/4 per cent is optimistic. It may very well be that we will see even fewer housing starts than the current forecast by the Indicative Planning Council of 122,500. The report goes on to say: Prospects for interest rates remain uncertain. It also states: . . . the general level of interest rates is assumed to start to fall before the end of 1986. Again there are no responsible economic commentators who think that interest rates will fall significantly before the end of this year. We are seeing that this Indicative Planning Council report is based on the best possible forecasts for our economy. If they are not met, housing starts will be down even further. The same report says: The Council's overall assessment is that underlying requirements for housing are still growing and are above the current activity level. The significance of this is that, if the demand for housing is above the availability of housing, people seeking housing will have to go to the private rental market; if there is pressure on the private rental market, as I will shortly show, they must go to public housing, which puts even greater strains on government expenditure. Let me quote from a couple of newspaper articles of recent days about the private rental market which is a disaster area. The Weekend Australian of 4-5 October says: While Mr Keating plays the graceless yokel in Washington, the Australian rental market has collapsed . . . The article goes on to say: Mr Keating ended the use of Section 51 of the Income Tax Act, which defrays all expenses, including interest, incurred in gaining assessable income. This means there are few new home units being built for investment. This is a tragedy. The Australian Financial Review, on 2 October, says: Residential rents in Sydney have soared by about 20 per cent this year, and another 10 per cent hike is tipped before the end of this year. The average rental for a three-bedroom, two-bathroom apartment on the lower North Shore is around $250 a week. The private rental market is collapsing, along with investor confidence. With the abolition of negative gearing, the introduction of the capital gains tax and other taxes and proposed punitive landlord and tenant laws from the Labor States, the rental market is in dire straits. The capital gains tax, which has contributed significantly to the decline in investor confidence in the private rental market and which has led to sharply increased rents, is now starting to produce its unintended consequences, as did the fringe benefits tax. The Opposition in government will repeal the capital gains tax legislation. Housing demand is higher than housing supply, and that is forcing people to move to the private rental market. Let me quote, just as an example, what has happened in Perth between June 1985 and June 1986. There the median rent for three-bedroom houses has increased from $89 a week to $135.50 a week, which is a staggering increase in that one-year period of 52 per cent. Mr Hodgman —In just one year. Mr BEALE —In just one year, as my colleague the honourable member for Denison says. The Government stands condemned. The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) has finally admitted that the private rental housing market is deteriorating and that further subsidies may be necessary for the savings banks to try to prop up lending. The housing package has been completely unravelled and a new policy direction on housing is demanded. The Government's economic policies have led to higher interest rates, and the increases in our internal debt and external debt are causing the rental market to disintegrate. If the Government does not do something about that and does not give a new direction on housing, there will be even greater strains on the Government to provide more money for public housing. I commend the amendment to the House. Mr Hodgman —It is my honour to second the amendment. I reserve my right to speak in the debate on the amendment. Ms McHUGH(Phillip)(10.22) —The Government is certainly moving in a new direction on housing, and that is the direction of public housing. The purpose of the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Amendment Bill is to obtain Parliament's approval for the amendment of the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Act 1985 for, first, the payment in 1986-87 of interest free capital grants to the States of $429,426,000 as part of the 1986-87 State governments' Loan Council programs; and, secondly, the payment in 1986-87 of amounts that States may nominate from their Loan Council programs as being for the purpose of public housing and payable under the concessional loan terms and conditions of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. The object of providing concessional loans for public housing of amounts nominated for that purpose is to provide an incentive for the States and the Northern Territory to increase the amounts that they direct to public housing. In accordance with the new arrangements agreed at the 13 July 1986 Loan Council meeting, the Federal Government agreed that the States could nominate up to 60 per cent from their Loan Council borrowing program for public housing in 1986-87. South Australia and Western Australia, as in previous years, will be able to nominate up to 100 per cent of their Loan Council State borrowings. If used for public housing, these funds are provided to the States at the highly concessional interest rate of 4.5 per cent, repayable over 53 years. There is $584.7m available in these loans for use by the States for public housing for 1986-87 compared with $459.4m used in 1985-86. In announcing these measures the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) urged the States to support the announced measures by taking up their full allocation under the Loan Council program, thus directing increased State resources to public housing. By increasing the allocation of funds to new public housing construction, the housing industry overall will be assisted, and it will ensure that employment in the industry is maintained at a satisfactory level. It will be this maintenance of jobs in the public sector that will provide a secure future for the industry rather than reliance on the uncertain climate in the private housing sector. The 1986-87 allocation represents an increase of $164.6m over the sum provided in 1985-86 under the CSHA and through the Loan Council borrowing program. When State matching and other funds are added, total funds available for public housing in 1986-87 should be about $2 billion. Mrs Darling —How much? Ms McHUGH —A total of around $2 billion. This is a clear indication of the Government's real concern for those thousands of needy Australian households which are unable to find adequate, affordable housing in the private sector. These people are our people. They look to the Federal Labor Government for assistance, and we are determined to make their housing needs a top priority. The States themselves are now recognising that public housing should be made a top priority. It is true that the pressure on the public housing sector is growing because of other factors in the overall housing situation. Of course, there are other factors. We do not ignore them. More and more ordinary Australians unable to find accommodation within the shrinking private rental market and unable to realise their dream of home ownership are relying on the public housing sector to satisfy their housing needs. We in the Government are very well aware of that. That is why we are providing increased funding for public housing. On the other hand, the Liberals, the Opposition, consider that we do not pander sufficiently to the self-interest of those who want to make a profit out of the housing market. They focus on the removal of the private tax advantages that are available to those wishing to make a profit. I shall focus on other actors in the scene-namely, the banks. At a time when there is less disposable income, because of wage restraint, and at a time of high interest rates and spiralling purchase prices of homes, especially in New South Wales, it is true that the prospects of realising the great Australian dream of home ownership are becoming more and more remote. The decision to partially deregulate housing interest rates earlier this year has meant more money for housing. Indeed, banks are now lending at record levels. But that does not mean housing for many Australian families. The 15 1/2 per cent interest rate is not affordable to many who cannot take the risk, under deregulation, of interest rates going through the roof in a short time. The banks gave the Government no guarantee that they would not increase the average cost of a new loan. I shall focus on some of their activities. Let us consider the response of the banks. What have they done to help in the area of housing? In spite of record profit levels, the banks told the Government earlier this year that savings bank housing funds had dried up and that they would not be able to continue their rate of lending for housing without substantial assistance from the Government. They have received that assistance. Although the banks got what they wanted, the prospects of ordinary Australians being able to afford a home loan are not looking as good as they could. Partial deregulation of housing loan interest rates, along with financial deregulation and the entry into Australia of foreign banks-I have not heard any criticism from the Opposition of those measures-have not done much to assist the average home buyer yet. The big winners in current circumstances in the game being played by the banks are those seeking large loans of $75,000 or more. Given the spiralling prices of houses everywhere, but especially in Sydney, people needing large mortgages make up a large proportion of borrowers. There is plenty of this money around, provided that one has sufficient salary to pay for it-those are the people about whom the Opposition is worried regarding taxation measures-and provided that one is willing to pay an interest rate of between 16 3/4 and 17 1/2 per cent. A range of home loan options has already been offered by banks, such as the Westpac Banking Corporation, including several aimed at those large borrowers. More initiatives will be taken by the banks to win a bigger share of the market for large home loans. Why not? It is extremely profitable for the banks. The majority of Australians who cannot afford such huge mortgage repayments must consider the other options. Many cannot afford the 15 1/2 per cent interest on the average loan. It is true to say that most savings banks are now offering the option of low start loans. It is that option that will become more attractive to the average home buyer. But is it really a viable alternative? It needs considering closely. As anyone with a mortgage knows, the first few years of repayments make no impression at all on the amount outstanding. Under a low-cost start loan, not only would borrowers not be repaying any principal, but they would not even be paying all the interest due. The longer the loans, the more interest is toted up that eventually must be paid. But for many people desperate for a home of their own, this option is seen as the only one which could bring that home ownership within their reach. Let us not fool ourselves on who is benefiting most from low start loans. The loans cost more in the long run, and it is the banks that come out the real winners in the end. Just six months after the Government deregulated the interest rates for new borrowers and extended a $140m subsidy to banks to boost their lending for housing, rumblings from some sections of the banking sector are already being heard again. It is said by some that the subsidy arrangement was negotiated against a background of an expectation of falling interest rates. Because that has not happened yet, they believe that total deregulation is the only answer to the problem. The Minister stated in the House two weeks ago that he has made it perfectly plain to the Housing Industry Association that there will be no increase to the pre-2 April housing loan rate of 13 1/2 per cent. I believe that the savings banks should be responsible not just to their major shareholders; they should be responsible to their small investors as well, those ordinary Australians who invested their savings in pass book accounts with the banks because they believed their funds would be protected. These funds make up some 30 per cent of savings banks deposits at interest rates averaging around 4.5 per cent. For many years in this country there has been a social contract whereby the savings of Australians on a priority basis would be made available for home lending at reasonable rates of interest. That social contract has now been broken, and the main beneficiaries are the banks. This Government wants some beneficiaries in housing. What is the Liberals alternative? They call for massive cuts in real income and living standards. It is difficult enough now for people trying to get a home of their own. It would be impossible under the Liberals because all they are catering to is the profit motive of private individuals. There would be chaos and disruption under them in the labour market. Just as there has been a growth of inequalities under Reaganomics since deregulation, which the Liberals support, there has also been a massive erosion of the American dream of home ownership. Now that we have a deregulated financial sector in Australia it is difficult to see the banks acting responsibly towards Australian home borrowers. As I said in the beginning, this Government is facing up to its responsibilities in the public housing sector. I just hope the banks will do the same in the private housing sector. I commend this Bill to the House. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.33) —That was a very short and precise expose of doctrinaire socialism which is at the very heart of the Government's policy in relation to housing throughout Australia. Before turning to the amendment so ably moved by my colleague and friend the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), I want to acknowledge the presence in the chamber this morning of the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) and other Tasmanian representatives who are very concerned about the way in which our State has been treated by the Hawke socialist Government, particularly in the area of housing and works. The amendment moved by the honourable member for Deakin-I commend him on the manner in which he is performing his duties as shadow Minister for Housing and Construction-is indeed a substantive one to which I wish to address certain remarks later in my speech. Before I turn to the amendment I want to draw attention to one aspect of the second reading speech made by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) on the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Amendment Bill, which has not been subject to very great comment. A decision was taken by the Hawke socialist Government which was forced on the Loan Council and which has had very substantial financial impact on Tasmania. Without staying to argue the rights or wrongs of the economic strategy, I draw attention to the fact that at the Loan Council meeting this year a decision was forced on the States, including Tasmania, to reduce the State governments' Loan Council program to $1,204m in 1986-87. That was a 23 per cent cut on the figure of 1985-86. When we are talking about housing in Tasmania it has to be borne in mind that since May of last year the Hawke socialist Government has cut funding to Tasmania in excess of $201.5m. That is an absolute disgrace. Mr Goodluck —They hate Tasmania. Mr HODGMAN —As the honourable member for Franklin says, they hate Tasmania. It is in the context of that vicious financial maltreatment of Tasmania that the additional across the board decision by the Loan Council, forced on it by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating), to cut by 23 per cent the amount of money available to the States has had a very disastrous impact on Tasmania and has had a very disastrous impact on those who wish to purchase homes or build homes in our State. In view of the catastrophe of this year's Budget it is significant that we go back a further year and just ascertain what the treatment was in Tasmania in relation to the housing and works program. I remind the House that if one cares to check Budget Paper No. 12 for the 1985-86 Commonwealth civil works program, one will find that the entire civil works program as set out in Budget Paper No. 12 for the State of Tasmania represented a miserable $2.57m unexpended balance of works in progress as at 30 June 1985. Even if every dollar were spent in the financial year just ended, the treatment of Tasmania would have been pitiful. But what is more interesting in relation to the Government's so-called commitment to housing is the fact that in relation to new works a miserly $520,000-- Mr Goodluck —How much? Mr HODGMAN —A miserly $520,000 for the provision of six houses was tacked on so late that it did not even get into the Budget Papers. It was given in a roneoed handout from the Minister's office. Mr Deputy Speaker, now that you are in the chair I must ask: Why was this $520,000 tacked on for the provision of six houses? In passing, I would have to say that I would like to know why, under the Hawke socialist Government's policies, six houses will cost over half a million dollars. We do not know where they have been built. The honourable member for Franklin watches every house built in his electorate. I ask whether he has seen any of these millionaire houses. This is six houses at a cost of $520,000. What it means is that the Hawke socialist Government's civil works expenditure for the whole of Tasmania, for the whole of 1985-86, was less than one-tenth of the amount provided for Tasmania by the Fraser Government in the same program in 1982-83. If that does not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Hawke socialist Government really does hate Tasmania and has given up any chance of winning any House of Representatives seat in Tasmania in the foreseeable future, I do not know what does. Mr Goodluck —We will be back again. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member will be back, of course, with an increased majority, because of the manner in which he serves his electorate. Mr Beale —They will probably lose a senator, though. Mr HODGMAN —The shadow Minister for Housing and Construction is quite right. In fact, the pundits are predicting that at the next half-Senate election-of course, we may have a double dissolution on our hands; the way this Government is going anything is possible-for which six senators will come up for election from Tasmania, the Liberal Party of Australia will clearly win three seats, the Australian Labor Party will be struggling to win two and the sixth seat will go to a non-party member. The reason I had to make this point is that one can hardly imagine what it has done to the economy of Tasmania to have a cut of 90 per cent in its funding program. As I said, less than one-tenth has been provided-- Mr Goodluck —That is the reason for the price of petrol. Mr HODGMAN —Well, the price of petrol obviously comes into the issue. But the fact of the matter is that this Government provided in 1985-86 only one-tenth of what was spent by the Fraser Government in its civil works program in 1982-83. I turn specifically to the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Amendment Bill. What do we find provided for Tasmania under this Bill? Under proposed section 5a the maximum aggregate of payments to Tasmania is a miserable $30m. That is chickenfeed. It is an insult to Tasmania. Under proposed section 5b it is even worse-a paltry $15m. The Government is treating Tasmania as trash, it is not giving our State a fair go and once again we see this vicious Hawke-Keating axis persecuting Tasmania for purely political reasons. Mr Goodluck —I do not know why. Mr HODGMAN —We do know why. It is because the Australian Labor Party cannot win a seat in the House of Representatives in Tasmania, and it will not because the Government has victimised Tasmania; it has intimidated Tasmania; it has stood over Tasmania; and it has bullied Tasmania. I now turn to the national scene. What a tragedy it is that under the economic mismanagement of this Government-about the only good thing the housing and construction sector of this Government has going for it is the permanent head of its Department-we are going to see over 20,000 persons in the building industry losing their jobs and, as the honourable member for Deakin pointed out, a shortfall in spending in the housing sector of $1 billion. It is interesting that a number of people ask: `What is $1 billion?'. Some ask: `Is it $100m?' The fact is that it is $1,000m. This Government, by deliberate policies, has created a situation in which $1 billion worth of housing sector activity will not take place this year. The honourable member for Deakin pointed out dramatically how wrong have been the Government's predictions for this year under this incompetent Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) and under this incompetent housing policy. It started off with a firm commitment by the Prime Minister that there would be 135,000 new starts this financial year. That figure was varied to some extent by the Indicative Planning Council assessment of 130,000. But we now have the drop-down figure of 122,500 new starts. I remind the House that two years ago the Prime Minister gave a firm electoral commitment that the Government would maintain the number of housing starts over the next two years. That was another broken promise. The figure that was then the accepted level of housing starts was 142,000. So, as the honourable member for Deakin has pointed out, there has been a drop from the cut-back figure of 135,000, but the original figure was 142,000. That means a drop of 20,000 new starts. Applying the job loss formula, that means a loss of 30,000 jobs. In case that is disclaimed by an incompetent Government endeavouring to wriggle out of its responsibilities in this matter, I remind the House that the estimate of job losses made by the honourable member for Deakin and by me is in fact less than the prediction by the building unions. Only a matter of 18 months ago a leading member of a leading New South Wales building union went on radio and at that point predicted job losses in excess of 20,000. On the updated figures, the union's estimate for job losses would be in excess of 30,000. Mr Beale —Shameful. Mr HODGMAN —It is shameful. The honourable member for Deakin, as shadow Minister, will be well aware that the one thing that the industry seeks more than anything else is some certainty as to where Government policy is going. Turning to the amendment, I point to the incompetence of this Government, which publicly stated that the amount that would be raised through the capital gains tax, which is specifically referred to in the amendment, was $25m. Yet at the Australian Labor Party National Con- ference which was held in Denison-I do not think it will come back to Denison in a hurry, not because there is anything wrong with Denison but because the people of Denison have seen through this rotten, twisting, lying Government-the figure went from $25m to $300m. The Treasurer of Australia boasted to his colleagues that the revenue from the capital gains tax would be $300m. I remember that, when the matter was debated in the Parliament, I said: `Do you really believe that the Government would bring in a capital gains tax to get a mere $25m? Do you really believe that it will employ 1,000 extra tax inspectors for a mere $25m? I smell a rat'. I should have said that I smelt a bandicoot and a ferret but I said that I smelt a rat. The truth is now coming out. The figure that the Government is after is not $25m but $300m. That is for starters. What will be the impact of that on the housing industry? I will quote from an article which appeared in the Australian only a day or two ago in which Mr Peter Knox, the Director of Taxes with the firm of Arthur Young and Co., a very big firm of chartered accountants in Sydney, stated: More and more taxpayers are becoming aware of the potential impact the capital gains tax will have on their investments. Mr Beale —Including the family home in certain circumstances. Mr HODGMAN —I am about to come to that. As the honourable member for Deakin and the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) have pointed out, it has now been exposed-I use that word advisedly-that there are 15 ways in which a capital gains tax can be imposed on the family home. Mr Beale —How many ways? Mr HODGMAN —Fifteen. At the time that the Government brought in the capital gains tax it told the people of Australia that the one thing that would be exempt would be the family home. That statement was not true because the law has now been exposed. There are 15 ways in which ordinary Australians will pay a capital gains tax on their home despite the fact that this Government repeatedly said that the family home would be exempt. Of course, this Government and this Prime Minister also said over and over again that there would be no capital gains tax. What credibility does this discredited Prime Minister have with the home owners of Australia, to whom he said publicly in the run up to the election: `So that there will be no misunderstanding, so that even those with the most limited intelligence will understand: There will be no capital gains tax'? That promise now lies in tatters and shreds. Worse still, the law which the Government brought in, which it promised would not encompass the family home, has been shown to be a fraud. Mr Robert Brown —Rubbish! Mr HODGMAN —It is not rubbish. There are 15 ways by which the capital gains tax will apply to the family home-and I hope it applies to the honourable member. Mr Robert Brown —Explain one. Mr HODGMAN —I will give one straight off the cuff. If the family home passes through an estate to the son and because he is unable to continue to operate in that particular area, he sells it, capital gains tax will be payable. I hope that the first home in Australia slugged with the capital gains tax is the home of the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown). Let him have a bit of his socialist dogma right back in his teeth. I hope that he is the first to fall into the trap of the capital gains tax or, if not him, one of his family. I bear him no ill-will, but he is one of the most doctrinaire socialists in this House. If he moves further to the left, he will fall off the cliff of Australian politics; that is how far to the left he has gone. I come to the amendment moved so ably by the honourable member for Deakin, which I had the honour to second. Mr Cohen —I think he has been bitten by something, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr HODGMAN —It is all right for the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) to make his interjections sotto voce from the other side of the chamber, but there is a bit of sense in what was put to him a few minutes ago by the honourable member for O'Connor. The plain fact is that, despite all of this Government's promises, on issues affecting housing the Government has been found guilty. It promised that interest rates would come down. The Treasurer and the Prime Minister said that interest rates would fall and would continue to fall, but that has not happened. The honourable member for Deakin was so right when he said that there is not a single economic expert in Australia who will say that interest rates are going to fall, as the Budget strategy demands that they must, by the end of the calendar year 1986. The home owners of Australia are now paying the highest interest rates in real terms since the Great Depression, and the pressure of interest rates is keeping young people out of homes. Worse still, particularly in areas of western Sydney, young people who got into their homes are now being forced out of them. Mr Goodluck —They are in strife. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member for Franklin is quite right. They are being forced to leave their homes because the policies of this Government have created an interest rate climate which those people simply cannot handle. That is bad enough in itself, but it is far worse when one realises that these policies are quite deliberate. These are deliberate economic policies of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer whereby they have created a situation as part of their economic strategy that interest rates will remain at a high level. That is a fundamental fact. It is a deliberate policy which is heartless and cruel. It is reminiscent of the words of Mr Dedman, who expressed the socialist dogma in the years after World War II when he said that he did not want to see all Australians own their own homes because that would create a nation of little capitalists. At every point where a purchaser wishes to obtain his or her home, this Government's policies are making it harder. The Government was warned about the decision in relation to the quarantining of negative gearing. The Government's own consultative committee told it in January last year that if it moved to quarantine negative gearing, that would create a situation where there would be a shortfall in the provision of accommodation on the rental market. The Government was clearly warned at the time and was exposed by the then shadow Minister. The Government chose to ignore the advice of its own consultative committee. The matter was discussed at a meeting of Ministers in Perth in February of last year and the Government was warned by its own advisers. I say in passing, to be fair, that the Government was warned by some of the State Labor Ministers who attended that meeting that if it fiddled with negative gearing, it would create a situation in which the supply and stock of rental housing would deteriorate, and more importantly, as the honourable member for Deakin has pointed out, rentals would rise on the remaining stock that was available because it would be at a premium. I do not often hand a bouquet across the political fence, and rarely have I been known publicly to commend a member of the New South Wales Left, but I commend the Minister for Housing in New South Wales, Mr Walker, who last year and this year had the courage to stand up and speak the truth on certain of these issues. Whether one agrees with Mr Walker or not, I found it refreshing that at least one State Minister, being a member of the Australian Labor Party, saw through the economic irresponsibility of the policies of the Hawke socialist Government. Mr Walker has been sent to Coventry because he again told the truth in Hobart at the Australian Labor Party National Conference. A lot of what he said was not only true at the time but has been proven to be true since. We have a disaster on our hands. The capital gains tax, the fringe benefits tax and the quarantining of negative gearing have combined to create a situation where the option of home ownership is fading in front of the eyes of prospective home purchasers, most of whom are young. Many of them placed their faith in this rotten Hawke socialist Government. Many were sucked in by the promises that there would be housing for all. Many believed that under this Government they would have a chance to buy their own home. They have been cruelly and disgracefully betrayed. They will not forget that their dreams of owning a home in Australia became a nightmare under the policies of the Hawke socialist Government. The sooner that this rotten government is thrown out of office, the sooner that this incompetent Minister is removed, and the sooner we put in place policies of a Liberal-National Party government which will give Australians the chance to own their own homes, and more importantly to keep them, the better for all Australians. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(10.52) —I shall find it necessary to depart to some extent from the essence of the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Amendment Bill to deal with some of the matters raised by Opposition members in what they claim to be an amendment in relation to this legislation. Of course, it is nothing of the kind. I have already indicated that the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) obviously is not happy with his shadow portfolio responsibilities. He wants to discard the responsibilities for housing and construction and is making a run for the shadow Treasurer's job. He has moved an amendment to this legislation which deals generally with economic questions and which has no direct relevance to this Bill at all. I was interested to hear some of the rhetoric from the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). He referred to the number of people who are disadvantaged in housing. He tried to claim that in some way that resulted from some deficiency in the housing policies of the present Government. Let us examine that statement. Undoubtedly a large number of people in Australia have just heard that contribution. I do not mind political rhetoric but when the rhetoric is intentionally and deliberately designed to misrepresent the circumstances, to mislead the community and to apportion blame to a government where that blame should not lie, I shall take the amount of time that is necessary to refute that rhetoric. Let us look at the record and see where the fault lies. When the Fraser Government came to office in 1975 the number of names on the public sector housing waiting list was 105,700 for the whole of Australia. After seven years of that Government that number had increased to 123,700. It was an increase of another 20,000 families in Australia who put their names on the waiting lists for public sector housing at a time when the economic policies of that Government were responsible for exceptionally high interest rates. It was claimed a short while ago that a similar thing was happening now. But what is happening now has nothing like the dimensions of the position at that time when people were being forced out of their homes. The Treasurer at that time, the honourable member for Bennelong and present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), used to refer to the fact that people were trading down their homes. What he meant was that people were being forced out of their homes because they were unable to meet their mortgage payments; they were trading down the quality of their homes. What did the Labor Government inherit? It was not just a matter of 123,000 people on the public sector waiting lists for homes; we also inherited a situation, because of the policies of the Fraser Government, where according to a Federal Government report at the end of last year dealing with homelessness and inadequate housing about 40,000 Australians sleep out of doors or in refuges every night. An additional 60,000 are on the verge of homelessness as a result of the situation that developed during those seven disastrous years. When talking of the provision and adequacy of housing and about the great Australian dream, let us also recall that the number of housing commencements in the last year of the Fraser Government had fallen to about 100,000. In the first three years of the present Government we lifted that figure to about 150,000. The fact that there has now been some marginal reduction in the number of housing commencements expected for this year reflects in large part general economic circumstances, from which we take no comfort. But the home building industry would have collapsed to less than 100,000 commencements this year had it not been for the fact that the present Government took the problem and attacked it seriously, and of course very successfully. The anticipation was that without those measures having been adopted by the Government there would be about 95,000 commencements this year. Opposition members should not shake their heads. The expectation from the Indicative Planning Council, if interest rates had not been relaxed on new housing loans, was that the number of housing commencements this year would have been 95,000. Opposition members know nothing about the housing industry. If they are not aware of that fact they would have been better to prepare for this debate by equipping themselves with some of the information that was necessary to make a more successful contribution to it. Mr Hodgman —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I claim to have been misrepresented and I challenge the honourable member to prove the truth of what he has just said. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr ROBERT BROWN —No proof is needed. That is known by every person in Australia, except the honourable member for Denison. The number of new commencements was expected to be 95,000. It will now be about 125,000 as a result of the relaxation of interest rate controls on new housing loans. In that way the housing industry was revived not only to the extent of 30,000 additional home commencements this year but also total private finance for housing, which was expected to collapse completely, is now back to in excess of $6,000m. I hope that the people who listened to the remarks of the honourable member for Denison will take that on board. Let us look at the public sector housing and at the Government's present housing program. Under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agree- ment, which provides finance for a number of different housing programs including the Aboriginal rental housing program, the pensioner rental program, the mortgage and rent relief scheme, the crisis accommodation program and the local government and community housing program, the Federal Government-the Hawke Labor Government-will make available a total of $1.2 billion to the States this year. That is only a start. In addition to that, the Government will also allow the States to borrow an additional $584.7m for public housing through the Loans Council and, as the honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh) indicated earlier, this will be at a concessional rate of 4.5 per cent, repayable over 53 years. That means that this year the Hawke Government is providing $164.6m more than was made available last year. That represents an increase of 14.8 per cent for public sector housing which is significantly in advance of the increase in building costs and the general consumer price index. That increase will make it possible for the States increasingly to attack the shortage of homes for Australians. Increasingly, Australian families will be given decent accommodation. That is not the kind of situation that existed when honourable members opposite were in office, when people were being thrown out of their homes and were taking accommodation in tents and tin sheds and when 40,000 people had nowhere to sleep at night. They did not have a roof over their heads. Mr Braithwaite —You are talking rubbish. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I know that honourable members opposite hate this, but I intend to take advantage of this opportunity to correct the impression that was given by the honourable member for Denison when he deliberately misrepresented these circumstances. Mr Hodgman —Absolute rubbish. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — Order! The honourable member for Denison has continued to interject during the speech of the honourable member for Charlton. If he continues to do so, the Chair will have no option but to deal with the honourable member. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Thank you for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker, but our greatest protection against Opposition members is the truth and that is what they hate. While they can feed out these misrepresentations, while they can peddle these lies, they take advantage of their opportunity to do so-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I think that the honourable member for Charlton should withdraw the phrase `peddling lies'. Mr ROBERT BROWN —While they peddle these deliberate untruths-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I think that the honourable member for Charlton might withdraw that phrase too. Mr ROBERT BROWN —While they peddle these untruths, these innocent untruths-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr ROBERT BROWN —There is a limit, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Charlton knows the forms of the House. He cannot suggest that another member is a liar and neither can he use some mechanism to get around that. The honourable member for Charlton will withdraw his phrase and continue with his speech. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Certainly. I do not need to make those claims because the Australian people do not need me to tell them that, they know. They know exactly what the position is. Right from the start the Hawke Government made it perfectly clear that it would deal with the serious deficiencies that we inherited in public sector housing. Only two or three months after we were elected in March 1983 we started this process. In the May economic statement we tore out of the Budget for that year $1,000m of pork barrelling, sops and handouts to the supporters, benefactors and members of the Liberal Party of Australia. We tore $1,000m out of that Budget and one of the things that we replaced it with was $500m for additional public sector housing. There are families throughout Australia who are now living in dignity in decent homes, providing adequately for their families and giving them security as a result of the policies of this Government. Those people who lived in fear and insecurity, families who lived in tents, tin sheds, mobile homes and caravans, are increasingly being placed in decent housing accom- modation. This Government, the Hawke Government, has consistently made a firm commitment to the Australian people that it would not continue to tolerate a situation in Australia where the degree of equity was of the kind we inherited, where people would be disadvantaged because of circumstances that were beyond their control. It would not tolerate a situation in which kids would be made liable for the fact that their parents were disadvantaged economically, financially or socially. This Government has made a commitment to the more deprived and distressed sections of the Australian community and it will continue with that commitment. I wish to refer also to the Opposition amendment that has been moved. Whatever might be said by the honourable member for Deakin, the honourable member for Denison and any other spokesman on the Opposition side, it is extremely important that the Australian people know the situation to which the Opposition again aspires. Let us have a look at part of the amendment. It complains that as a result of the Government's significant tax initiatives, incentives have been reduced for private investors to put funds into the private rental market. It claims that this has been brought about by the imposition of two additional initiatives in relation to the taxation system. I do not know how Opposition members can go out and defend this, apart from the misrepresentations we have heard. There are two things that the Opposition wants to do and I want to tell the Australian people exactly what that will mean. If those characters opposite get back into government they will do these two things, let us make no mistake about that. Let me tell 96 per cent of the Australian people that they will pay for the Opposition's policies. They know whom they will pay and how they will pay. Opposition members should hang their heads in shame. First, the Opposition wants to remove what it calls the iniquitous capital gains tax. Mr Beale —Hear, hear! Mr ROBERT BROWN —There, I hope that that response has been heard. Let me point out that 95 per cent of Australian taxpayers pay taxes that subsidise those people who have been able to take advantage of capital gains. Ninety-five people out of every 100 have been subsidising the untaxed capital gains of those people who were sufficiently smart to convert their taxable income into untaxed capital gain. We have made sure that forever into the future, while ever a Labor Government has the opportunity to determine the direction of this nation, people will have their income taxed, whatever form that income may take. I will not be tolerant and this Government will not be tolerant about a situation in which wage and salary earners in my electorate pay their taxation to subsidise a limited number of people. Mr Braithwaite —That is rubbish. Mr ROBERT BROWN —The honourable member for Dawson is interjecting, but he knows full well that most of his constituents are wage and salary plugs; so why does he come in here and defend a relatively small proportion of people in his electorate who are able to take advantage of untaxed capital gains? The same applies to the honourable member for Deakin. Mr Hodgman —Your arguments are being torn to shreds like your fringe benefits tax. Mr ROBERT BROWN —The same thing applies to the honourable member for Denison. Most of his constituents are wage and salary earners, so why does he not represent them instead of all the rip-off merchants? Mr Hodgman —I do represent them and they keep re-electing me. Mr ROBERT BROWN —The honourable member does not. He does not represent them either. He represents neither them nor their interests. Those people who were able to convert taxable income into untaxed capital gains under previous Liberal-National Party governments will not be able to do it any more. The claim that is being made that the family home will be taxed under that capital gains tax provision is just as spurious as some of the other points that were made by the honourable member for Denison. The next thing that they will want to do is to take out the removal of negative gearing provisions. Mr McVeigh —Take them out. Mr ROBERT BROWN —The honourable member for Groom says: `Take them out'. Let us see what that negative gearing means, so that the people who heard some of the earlier contributions to this debate will know exactly what it means. Negative gearing provided investors with the opportunity to raise large capital loans to buy an asset which was then leased or rented at an amount that was insufficient to cover the interest that was charged on the loan. They deliberately engineered an arrangement of that kind so that then they could take the extra interest off their taxable incomes. Opposition members interjecting- Mr ROBERT BROWN —The attempt to shout down members on the Government side when they are trying to explain these circumstances is coming from cockies' corner. I hope that the people in the rural areas understand this as well. Those investors attempted deliberately to gear up the amount of interest that they were paying on the loans, claim that against other income and, as a result of that, reduce the tax that they were paying. In effect, that meant that the ordinary wage and salary earner, in paying his or her tax, was subsidising the asset accumulation of those people who were able to take advantage of negative gearing. By moving an amendment, honourable members opposite have made it perfectly clear that if they are given the opportunity they will build back into the system all the rorts, ramps and rip-offs for which they were responsible before. The 95 per cent of the Australian people who, through taxation, finance untaxed capital gains and negative gearing should keep that very, very clearly in mind. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(11.12) —One becomes confused and bemused in following the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown). In fairness to him, I think it would be reasonable to say that in this Parliament he has played many a great game and he has run many a great race. I recall with pride how he, as Chairman of the Economic Committee, quite appropriately and properly indicated to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that the Prime Minister was wrong in his economic philosophies and policies, and the Prime Minister quite often accepted the honourable member's advice. I am not terribly sure whether the honourable member for Charlton is like the old footballer who has torn his cartilage or the greyhound that has ruptured its spleen, but on balance I think he is like the old racehorse that has been turned out to the back paddock and he is trying to get the vitamins and all those things out of his system. I say to him that he has run his last race. I want to take a few minutes to correct some of the things that he said. As the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren), who is sitting at the table, quite honestly knows, the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement was set up by a government probably four decades ago. The 4.5 per cent, which the honourable member tried to convey to the Australian public was the interest rate, was there long before Australia had to put up with a socialist government. It does not give me any great pleasure at all to indicate to the people that, quite frankly, the honourable member did not know what he was talking about in his speech. The most recent statistics indicate that by the June quarter 1986 dwelling commencements were running at an annualised rate of 117,000, compared with 136,000 last year and 152,000 the previous year. The Government's housing policies are going down the drain each and every year. Anyone who knows anything at all about macroeconomic policies knows that there are two reasons for this: This Government has allowed to develop a climate in which we have in real terms the highest interest rates known in this country and it has not seen fit to make the same arrangements with the building societies as it made with the banks. The honourable member for Charlton did not have the courage-I am not saying that he did not have the honesty; he is the old racehorse out in the back paddock that has run its last race-to say that 20 per cent of all people renting houses in Australia are spending, before they can buy their bread and meat, 35 per cent of their incomes on rent. Mr Braithwaite —Thirty-five per cent? Mr McVEIGH —I know that the honourable member for Dawson is upset about it; I can understand that. Twenty per cent of all householders who are renting, under the socialists, are spending more than 35 per cent of their incomes on rent. What do the kids have with which to buy a cricket ball or bat or a football to kick around? Surely my colleague and my friend the honourable member for Charlton is not proud of what his Government has achieved. However, I am proud to rise in this debate on the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Amendment Bill to support the very comprehensive amendments that have been proposed by someone who obviously is a statesman to come up with these types of amendments. I particularly want to support those amendments as a Queenslander. As my colleague the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) said, as a previous Minister for Housing obviously I have concern for the welfare of people, and I have a great concern for the welfare of my State. As we are all aware, Queenslanders are a pretty independent lot. We have a proud history of encouraging free enterprise as a means of getting ahead and providing for one's needs. I know that historians record in the annals of history that Queensland has led the way in the latter part of the twentieth century by providing its people with the free enterprise spirit which pulled this country out of its recession bound slumber. This spirit is apparent when one glances at the figures for the waiting lists for public housing throughout Australia. I am glad that the honourable member for Charlton at least has adopted the Westminster system and is staying to listen to the next speech. I know that he will be upset about it, but it is the truth. In New South Wales, a socialist State, almost 57,500 families-Australian families-are waiting for public housing; in South Australia, a socialist State, there are 39,500; in Victoria there are 32,644; and in Western Australia more than 11,000 are on the public housing list. In Queensland, a free enterprise State now and always, only 9,000 people need public assistance to put roofs over their heads. A member from New South Wales, where 57,700 of his fellow New South Welshmen are waiting for public housing, must look with envy at the great State of Queensland where only 9,000 people need public assistance to put roofs over their heads. Only Tasmania and the Northern Territory have lower figures, but they have much smaller populations and do not have the great influx of migrants from other States that Queensland has. In addition-this is terribly important-Queensland has the shortest waiting time. The time between the date on which a needy family signs up for public housing and the date on which a home is made available is only a matter of weeks, usually a month. Like the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) and the honourable member for Hinkler (Mr Conquest), I am proud to boast that the Queensland housing authority is by far the most efficient in Australia in providing shelter. That is despite the mighty drift to the north of people from southern States. Queensland still manages to cope better with this growth than any other State. All this is occurring while Queensland has one hand tied behind its back because, as a State, it still does not receive its full per capita share of States grants for housing funding. During my stewardship as Minister for Housing and Construction, I succeeded in correcting this disproportionate allocation of funds to the States from the Commonwealth. As an honest Queenslander, I saw the need for justice to be done and I took the opportunity to grant funds according to the population base of each State. Since that time in the early 1980s there has been a gradual phasing in of per capita allocation of funds. To introduce per capita funding immediately would have caused massive disruption in many States and the plan to phase in per capita funding over 10 years will not be fully implemented until 1991. Regardless of this honest and innovative approach, however, Queensland has lost over $111m since 1981-82. How has Queensland managed with the loss of $111m to keep its public housing list down to only 9,000 and the time spent on the waiting list to one month? Deep down, the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) must admire this approach. I know that he will not say that he does and I do not expect him to do so. However, when he is in the back paddock getting rid of his vitamins he will recognise that Queensland is a great State. The House will recall that I have spoken of Queensland being the free enterprise State of Australia. When people from overseas and Australian businessmen who become fed up with all the socialist philosophy in the south look to invest in Australia, or relocate, where do they settle? Queensland, of course. Why do they bring their money and businesses to Queensland? They do so because Queensland gives them more encouragement in the form of lower taxes. We do not believe in death duties. I shall tell the railway workers in my electorate that the honour- able member for Charlton is putting capital gains tax on the family homes of workers. In Queensland we offer more encouragement in the form of lower taxes, lower workers compensation premiums and, above all, a Premier, the Hon. Joh Bjelke-Petersen, who will back up these policies. Queensland led the way in the South East Queensland Electricity Board dispute for the nation. The outcome ensured that railway workers, meat workers, main road workers and council workers were able to have an electricity supply connected to their homes at a cheaper price. The honourable member for Charlton wants the people to have dearer electricity connections. The rest of Australia is just now catching up with the concept of giving management the right to manage, whether it be in the Pilbara or the Public Service in Canberra. We in Queensland have a sympathetic understanding for low income earners who, through their hard work and sweat, have made Queensland the great State that it is today, but for many of these people home ownership is a dream, something achievable only by a chance win in the lottery under the socialists. I remind the honourable member for Charlton that in the last years of the Fraser-Anthony coalition 72 per cent of Australian people either owned their own homes or were in the process of purchasing them. What is the figure under the socialists? We had the highest home ownership rate in the world but we cannot claim to have that now. That is because the socialists still aspire to the Calwell philosophy-and I quote from one of his speeches: `We do not believe in home ownership. We do not want little capitalists permeating Australia's society by owning their own homes.' I shall expose those blokes for what they are. In Queensland we have a home ownership scheme which allows a family on a low income-this is why low income earners vote for the honourable members for Deakin (Mr Beale), for Denison (Mr Hodgman), for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), for Lyne (Mr Cowan), for Cowper (Mr Nehl), for Hinkler (Mr Conquest) and me. We are really interested in low income earners. In Queensland we have a scheme which allows low income earners to afford to buy a home of their own. I am talking about people who are earning less than $300 a week. The scheme came into existence in 1982 when we had meaningful relationships between the Commonwealth and the State. The Housing Commission has granted over 13,000 loans and it is interesting-I hope that the honourable member for Charlton is listening-that there have been only 50 repos- sessions. The scheme has kept our public housing waiting list at a low level and at the same time it has discouraged the poverty trap by giving families the ability to become the proud owners of their own homes. We are all aware that the breakdown of the nuclear family has caused greater strains in the public housing sector, but there are other factors which influence the demand for state housing. The Labor Government's decision to discontinue negative gearing, the current high interest rates-due to the Hawke socialists' policies-and a gloomy economic outlook have led to a downturn in the construction industry. As a result, rents have skyrocketed. I hope that the honourable member for Charlton reads the newspapers. He does not keep in touch with his constituents, but if he reads the newspapers he will know that rents have skyrocketed. Some of the families which were home owners were, through no fault of their own, unable to keep up with their rising mortgage repayments. The socialists are not interested in helping building societies. In the difficult times in which we are living we need policies introduced into this Parliament that reflect and recognise the aspirations of all middle and low income earners. That is why I am privileged to support the amendment that has been moved by the honourable member for Deakin. It seeks to introduce the necessary policies, and if it is implemented it will do so. The need for innovative policies is becoming more and more apparent with the call for financial restraint from all sectors of our economy. The cut in Federal money coming into the States' treasuries has brought about the need for both a change in the expenditure of scarce resources and a rethinking of the way in which we fund programs and capital works. I am interested that the socialists have not talked about the capital works section of the Bill. That is the section which deals with Commonwealth contributions to works, buildings which are not revenue producing but which provide services such as health and education facilities. These arrangements have been in existence for many years and it is interesting to note Commonwealth-State debts developments. I am not interested in the fact that something is happening in Queensland on 1 November, just the overall concept, but Queensland-I hope that the honourable member for Charlton and the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) are listening-has the lowest public sector debt per head of population-- Mr Cowan —Of any State in Australia? Mr McVEIGH —Yes, of any State in Australia. Queensland has a debt of only $949 per person to pay compared with the overall average in Australia of $1,171. The Commonwealth debt was nearly $3,000 for every man, woman and child living in this country. I ask people of compassion and concern-- Mr Robert Brown —That is us. Mr McVEIGH —Government members do not have a grain of compassion and concern, let alone an ounce. What are we doing to our future generations? Our gross foreign debt has risen dramatically from $9.1 billion at the end of June 1981 to about $88 billion at the end of June this year. This represents about $5,500 per head of population. When we tie in the interest payments on this gigantic debt, we find that it is about $5 billion, or about $390 on the head of each and every one of us. Our national consumer credit bill is now about $60 billion, representing a private debt of $8,000 for every Australian worker. How is this debt to be paid back? These people on the other side of the chamber have designed macroeconomic policies that are forcing a debt of over $8,000 on every baby that is born in Australia. It is an enormous debt. The Commonwealth needs to reduce its demand for funds from the financial markets so that new investment can take up the opportunity to invest. All the push and shove that we see to lure investment in manufacturing will not bear results unless the market has access to cheaper money, a stable economy and security in its ventures. Again I am proud to say that my great State of Queensland has managed to keep its per capita tax rate the lowest in the country, and this is without a tax on liquor, petroleum and tobacco or a financial institutions duty. Those are the sorts of taxes that the socialists impose on the poor workers. They are not interested in the workers at all. It is no wonder that we have so many defectors from the south coming to sunny, warm, tax free Queensland. I spoke earlier about the need to develop innovative approaches to our traditional way of funding works projects. Private tertiary education institutions represent such a concept. Where do we find this alternative approach to public education? We find it in Queensland, the home of free enterprise, the State with 3,000 would-be students, due to the policies of the Commonwealth, still on waiting lists, wanting to expand their education to make their home State even greater. If we do not have the funding to expand existing facilities, if we do not have the resources from the Commonwealth to give our youth every opportunity they deserve, and if we cannot find places for them in the work force, due to socialist economic policies, why not let someone with entrepreneurial flair and guts to take on such a challenge do so? We need more people willing to embrace opportunities for making our nation stronger, smarter, and able to compete. The Federal Government should absorb more of Queensland's free enterprise spirit and endeavour to build up this nation. It must not be timid or slow about it. It must recognise that education is a business just as any other, and it can be sold while still maintaining a high quality of output. If the leaders of this country do not begin to take up this entrepreneurial spirit, our indebtedness, on both a Commonwealth and State level, will continue to expand out of all proportion. If the Commonwealth wants to imitate the Queensland way of doing things, I have complete support for that proposition and no objection whatsoever; in the long run, the nation will be much better off. The Premier of Queensland, the Honourable Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, through his actions-- Mr Goodluck —A good man! Mr McVEIGH —I am delighted that a Tasmanian understands that-Sir Joh is a good man and a great man. He has proved that the free enterprise spirit succeeds and succeeds well if it is allowed to do so. We in Queensland have ploughed the fertile fields, tended our crops and weeded out all the unnecessary regulations and restrictions. As a result, business has flourished and will continue to prosper. I ask the honourable member for Charlton, the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes), who is at the table, and the socialists opposite: Is it not about time that they and their Government looked to its barren ploy and tried to do something about it? Mr COWAN(Lyne)(11.33) —I feel that the House is indebted to the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh), a Minister in the previous Administration, for revealing to us this morning and to the people of Australia the facts about Queensland and its comparison with the other States of Australia. I say that because some of my comments will touch on the rights and responsibilities of the States concerning housing. It is encouraging to hear an honourable member bring forward the facts about a State that has encouraged private enterprise to supply its housing needs. There are times when all honourable members on this side of the House, particularly myself, would love to get up and ask: `Why are we involved at all with housing, education and a few other fields that are virtually within the province of the States?'. The States have the power to deal with such matters, if they wish to exercise them. But they come to the Commonwealth and say: `We need the funding to subsidise housing and other areas that are within our province'. We as a Commonwealth have become involved in those areas. We have all been responsible for that. I believe that we would have done better had we said to the States: `Your rights are there'. I even go so far as to say that we should give them back their taxing powers. That would allow a decentralised system of administration in Australia, which is so important to the future of so large a continent. We have a great responsibility to develop our country, our rivers, and so on. The only way we shall do that is to encourage private enterprise to do it. The honourable member for Groom was quite forthright. Everything that he said was informative. We thank him. As he said, Queensland, with a smaller waiting list for housing compared with the lists of other States, illustrates the thought that the Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, and members of his Administration have given to this very important matter. The rights of the States are virtually all there now for them to tackle their responsibility in the service fields of education and housing. They have responsibility for such matters. The Commonwealth can virtually do without responsibility in that regard, although if a Liberal-National Party government were elected to office, it would not scrap such responsibilities because needs exist and we must try to help the States. I hope that, gradually, we can pass over to the States the responsibility for taxing and for other areas. I am sure that the nation would be much better for that. The States (Works and Housing) Assistance Amendment Bill is sound. It outlines the funds that the Commonwealth will make available to all the States for those who need housing. The honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) spoke earlier. I give him great credit for the fact that he is never afraid to get up in the House to argue the Government's case. He spends a lot of time in the chamber, for which I also give him credit. However, he was a little wrong in some of the cases that he put before the House this morning. In June 1983, after this Government came to power, about 124,000 people throughout the Commonwealth were waiting for government housing. By the end of 1985, the figure had increased to 155,753. It is no use honourable members saying that many new building commencements have taken place. The fact remains that since the Hawke Government came to office, there has been an increase in the number of Australians who require government housing. That is the important fact. This Government and the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) have been unable to overcome the problem regarding government housing for the poorer people of Australia. If we were to attack the housing problem as it should be attacked, I feel that there may not be any need for the first home owners scheme and other means of assistance provided by government throughout Australia. I am sure that the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) agrees that if we were to provide the incentives for private enterprise and State governments to go ahead and do things, there would be no need for the Commonwealth to be involved. Instead, as has been revealed during the entire debate, it is necessary for us to point out to the Government that if the anomalies, additional taxes and impositions that have been imposed by the Government were lifted, free enterprise would be able to build houses, units, and so on, for the needy people of Australia. I listened carefully to the honourable member for Charlton when he went into some detail to try to explain to the House the virtues of negative gearing. I see his point. He raised the other side of the argument. His argument was not correct. Let us get down to the grass roots level and consider the communities in which we live. I can talk of the towns of Taree, Raymond Terrace, Nelson Bay, and so on, in my electorate. Governments will not cure the housing needs of Australia. It will be done by the little person who, from a superannuation point of view, decides to erect a unit, or whatever, as an investment. It will be done by the person working on the street for the council and the small businessman. Those people work hard and at weekends they employ labour so they can be with their families. I refer to those living in a caravan in their yard and wives having to put up with many problems so that they may create an asset that, to them, will be a form of superannuation. Mr Nehl —They need incentive. Mr COWAN —They need incentive as the honourable member for Cowper said. Not only is this superannuation for the people concerned; it also provides housing for the needy of Australia. This individual does not charge excessive rental. He will help overcome the problem with housing because he will go out and work over weekends and live in poor conditions in a caravan or a tent on a block of land. This person has owned a home and sold it. He may buy another home, or erect accommodation in his home town and rent it to people looking for accommodation. Very often in debate in this chamber members of the Opposition, and the shadow Minister for Housing and Construction, the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), who is sitting at the table, have indicated that in many instances rentals are very high. Mr Scott, the President of the Real Estate Institute in New South Wales, was on television this morning. He indicated the growing numbers of people requiring housing and what should be done to overcome the problem. This man is involved with an organisation directly concerned with housing. He sells houses, encourages people to buy and finds accommodation. He knows about the housing industry. He has been telling the Government for a long time what the answer is to this problem. We can all quote instances of high rentals which the poorer people on low incomes cannot afford to pay. There is no competition in the industry. The answer to the problem is that the Government and the States should provide low cost housing, but we have got to get private enterprise to come in too. I spoke about the little person who wants to build a block or so of units down the road. He wants to own a home and build another one in order to get something behind him. We have to encourage these types of people. The Government should not place capital gains tax or negative gearing upon them. This is the important factor: The Government should not impose these measures which are killing the incentive and will of the Australian people to work. This is what is happening in our young Australia. What is Australia doing? Does the Government not realise that Australia is not yet 200 years of age? We will be celebrating our Bicentenary in 1988. It is all right to compare ourselves with the older European countries, but let us have a look at our young country. We have a responsibility to feed the world, to feed and house our own people and to develop the natural resources of Australia. Are we tackling this properly? I am sure we are not. We have lost our incentive. We have lost our will to work in this country. Mr Shipton —Absolutely right. You have summed it up. Mr COWAN —I am sure the honourable member agrees with me on this. We had better think about it. I assure the House that when we get back into government we will examine, as we are now, the policies that will give incentive back into industry and give incentive to the smaller person working for a wage for the local council or the business down the road. These are the people to whom we have to give incentive. The honourable member for Groom, to whom we are indebted, came into this chamber today and cited figures for Queensland. It is all right for the Government to try to run down the Premier of Queensland. It is all right to say all these things about him. If that is the only way the Government feels it will beat him, it is a poor attack. As the honourable member for Groom has said, if one examines the facts that emerge from Queensland there is plenty of evidence of what can be done if a government really wants to do things. We have a responsibility in this country to return the incentives that have been lost to the people of Australia. Let us have a look at interest rates which now stand at 16 per cent or 17 per cent. Who can afford to pay that? Let us compare that with the rest of the world. The honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) often talks about the problems which affect the people living in Coffs Harbour and Port Macquarie and the growing communities around Australia. Let us look at inflation and unemployment. Why should there be unemployment in this country, when we have a world to feed and a country to develop? Is there not something wrong with the administration? Have we lost, as I said earlier, our foresight of what our endeavours and our directions should be as people? We can look at the low dollar. There is no need for the dollar to be low. We all run around and say: `Isn't it great that the dollar is low because we can sell our products'. That is very nice. We all agree with that. But should we not have a stronger dollar? I am sure that we should. What about our balance of payments and our national debt? We all get up in the Budget debate, which is still before the House, and say: `It is nice that the deficit has come down by $1 billion'. It is still $3.5 billion, and it is a rubbery figure. That is very true. I will not go into the national debt or the fringe benefits tax, but they are having a tremendously adverse effect on the smaller business man, industry and business generally. Only this morning an article in the Press indicated that only 15 per cent of Australians believe that there should be a fringe benefits tax; 85 per cent of Australians are saying that we should throw this tax out. Members of the Opposition, including the honourable member for Deakin, said last night in this House that we will throw this tax out. That is what the people of Australia require. These are the impositions that we have to attack here. This nation will never forget this Treasurer. He comes into the House with a fringe benefits tax without considering the realities or the effect it will have on the building of homes, on the farmer in the field and on nurses in hospitals who receive concessional accommodation. Suddenly the hospital says that the rent has to be doubled. What is the answer to this problem? It is going through to the consumer, the worker, the trainee in the hospital and into all fields. It is affecting apprentices and all the young people in this country. They are suffering because of the imposition of the fringe benefits tax. That is only one little issue with this tax. It is a nasty tax. It is a tax that this nation cannot afford. People who are working should not have the worry of sending in these returns. I have spoken of the capital gains tax. Let us not run away from this problem which particularly affects housing. Only a minute or so ago I spoke about a young person who was about to get married. He said: `I will marry at some time because I want to have a family'. That is the traditional way of life in Australia. He gradually pays off a block of land. The Minister for Housing and Construction, who is sitting at the table, should listen to this because this is a matter which he forgets. This is a matter which he and his Government have really forgotten about. Young Australians today have incentive, but they are changing their thoughts. They are changing in my electorate and they are changing in the Minister's electorate. The Minister comes from an industrial area. These young Australians buy a block of land on terms, pay it off and erect a home. They live there for a while, sell the home and buy another block of land. As I said earlier, they live in a caravan or a tent on the block, but they go ahead and build another home. After the sale of their first home they are up for a capital gains tax on top of the negative gearing. That is the fact of the matter. What incentive is that to these young Australians who are trying to follow in our footsteps? The honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) was married a month ago. How often has he got up in this House and put a case forward for his electors on these important issues? As a young man he will be in this place for a darn long time. He will be here longer than I have been here and I am sure he will take his place on the front bench, because he is sensible. It is important that we should get our feet on the ground. I have reiterated time and again that the approach of this Government is wrong. That is why I am thankful that the honourable member for Groom has come into this House this morning and stated the case for Queensland, which is a free enterprise State. I could go on and on, but I do not wish to take up the time of the House. The legislation is important. But I have put forward some new thoughts, which have just come to me as I stand here and speak, about our responsibility as elected parliamentarians of this nation. We are failing. But I hope and I know that we of the Opposition parties will not fail in our endeavours to construct and put in place policies which, I am sure, will serve this nation very well over the years to come. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(11.50) —First, on behalf of the Acting Treasurer (Mr Hurford), who introduced the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Amendment Bill, I would like to sum up some of the points made by the Opposition in this debate. In the first instance, let me take up the effect of the Bill on public housing. The House will be aware that one of the two intents of the Bill is to make certain percentages of the loan component of the State Government borrowing program-that is, 60 per cent, and 100 per cent in the case of South Australia and West Australia-available to the States at 4 1/2 per cent interest, repayable over 53 years. I am sure the Opposition will agree that that is a highly concessional deal for expenditure on public housing. I will give honourable members some figures on that in a moment and I will pick up some of the points that were made. This $585m worth of expenditure on public housing comes on top of the $693.7m by way of total grant to the States under the Commonwealth-State housing agreement. The total is a very substantial sum of money, almost $1.3 billion of Federal funds which will go to the States for public housing. Let us just compare public housing expenditure in 1986-87 under this Government with what was achieved, say, in the last year of the former Government. First of all, in 1982-83 under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, $406m was made available and nominated funds totalled only $146m. That was a total of $552m for that year. This year under the CSHA the States will get that $694m I just mentioned entirely by way of grant and an extra $582m, a total of $1,275.9m all up. That is a 131 per cent increase on the funding in 1982-83. A great proportion of that increase, of course, comes from the very great rise in nominated funds-this has gone up from $146m to almost $600m in just on four years-which will be paid under this Bill. I am sorry that I was not here for the full time of this debate-I was at a meeting-but I understand that the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) made the point that the housing funds for Tasmania have been cut. I cannot really work out how he came to that conclusion. Mr Beale —No, he said total grants. Mr WEST —Let us talk about what Tasmania is getting under the housing grants and nominated funds arrangements. Back in 1982-83 it got $29m; this year it is almost $58m. The nominated funds have gone up from $10m to $30m. Tasmania could have got more. I say to the honourable member for Denison that he had better go down and see Gray about this, because Tasmania was the only State in Australia that did not fully take up its entitlements under the nominated funds arrangements in this Bill, which provide for loans at 4 1/2 per cent. Basically, the Gray Government in Tasmania ought to be condemned for that. I understand that the shadow Minister for Housing and Construction, the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), raised several points which I will quickly take up in the time available to me. The first is the issue of interest rates. I make the point that the former Government presided over the highest short term bill rates-that is, say, 90-day bills-in this country's history when they reached over 20 per cent back in the middle of 1982. The House will be aware-we have made this clear on a number of occasions-that this Government's policy is to take the pressure off interest rates. It is well known why interest rates have been historically high over the last year or so. I will not go into those reasons here. However, the Government has adopted a policy of taking the edge off interest rates by putting more pressure on the fiscal and wages policies. Honourable members opposite would be aware of what happened in the Budget. They know that we have, for the first time in a number of years, a domestic surplus of $0.8 billion and a full Budget deficit of only $3.5 billion. The public sector borrowing requirement has been brought down to 4.4 per cent of gross domestic product which, if honourable members opposite were fair dinkum about this, I think they would admit is a good effort. Certainly we want to see interest rates come down further. We have set the budgetary conditions in place to achieve that, as I have just enunciated. We expect that over the next few weeks and months an acceptable wages policy will be arrived at and, as mentioned in the Budget, that will involve substantially less than full wage indexation. So the wages and fiscal conditions are in place to see a fall in interest rates. Furthermore, the dollar has been firmer, as honourable members well know, over the last few weeks and interest rates are more stable and are now trending down. I believe that overnight the 90-day bank bill rate went down to around 17 per cent, which is the lowest since mid-August. I hope that after a suitable lag occurs the cash management trust rates will start to trend down as they did earlier this year, before the further depreciation of the dollar occurred in May and then in late July. I think that cash management trust rates will start to come down and that is a fairly encouraging outlook for housing interest rates. I do not want to overstress that point, but all of my economic advice, and the advice of Professor Fred Gruen's Indicative Planning Council, is that we could see a fall in housing interest rates some time towards the end of this financial year. Mr Beale —No, they don't make that judgment; they get that from you. Mr WEST —That is the advice that I get and with which I concur. So, overall, it is a moderately encouraging outlook for interest rates, because this Government has in place the fiscal policies, and will get in place the wages policies, that are conducive to a fall in interest rates. As I said, the dollar is firmer and interest rates on the short term market are starting to trend down. Again, I do not want to overstate my case, but that is the position, and honourable members opposite know well that that is true. I now take up the point that I am told the shadow Minister made with regard to the private rental market. As I have said inside and outside this House, in some cities the private rental market is tight. In some cities that is reflected in the level of rents and vacancy rates. However, let us do a quick comparative analysis. Back in September 1982 we had the following vacancy rates across the board: Sydney, 3.2 per cent; Melbourne 1.4 per cent; Brisbane, 0.8 per cent; Adelaide, 1.3 per cent; Perth, 4.3 per cent; and Canberra, 2.1 per cent. Out of all of those cities only two cities today have a lower vacancy rate. Sydney has gone down to one per cent and Perth, to which city special conditions apply, as we know, is down to 1.5 per cent. Melbourne has gone up. Brisbane has gone from 0.8 per cent to 4.5 per cent and Adelaide has gone from 1.3 per cent to 2.8 per cent. Again, I do not want to overstate the case. I am saying that, yes, in Sydney and Perth particularly the private rental market is pretty tight. However, again, I believe that there is an encouraging outlook in the private rental market, as some of the industry organisation representatives suggested at our Australian Housing Council meeting last Friday. For instance, in July the approvals for units and flats had gone up by 14 per cent, and that was the highest figure since October 1985. As I said, it looks as if the investment could be starting to come through again in the private rental market which, of course, is predominantly concerned with the construction of new units, flats and other dwellings. Unlike the Opposition, we do not pine for a return to the days of the tax rorts when people could negatively gear their investment to the extent that they could get a tax write-off against not only the income from the property, but against all their other income, whether it results from work as a specialist, a Qantas pilot or whatever. Of course, we want a fair dinkum tax regime. I make the point that negative gearing has been quarantined; it has not been wiped out. It is restricted to the income from the relevant property or properties. That is the way it will stay because we are committed to that position. It is far better to rely on a depreciation allowance such as we have introduced, which, as I said a moment ago, appears to be working better and which is restricted to new buildings and add-on renovations, than it is to encourage, through tax rorts, people to speculate and drive up the prices of existing buildings simply because they can get a tax concession. We intend to use the depreciation allowance to hike up investment in the private rental market but at the same time to get the added spin-off of investment in new buildings and thus assist the industry. Mention was made of policy possibilities. It is always open to the Australian Housing Council to put forward ideas. That is what it is for. It comprises some 40 representatives from the industry, including the Master Builders Association, the Housing Industry Association, the Real Estate Institute of Australia, the unions, the Australian Bankers Association and State Ministers. All of the industry organisations are represented on that Council. Of course, they ask: `What are your forward intentions? We would like you to consider these matters'. The day before the meeting I met with members of the Master Builders Association and the Housing Industry Association. They put up policy suggestions about home ownership and about investment in the private rental market. Of course, I do not send them packing. I say: `Yes, well, of course you know that our package is firmly in place; nevertheless I will not send you away. We will look at whatever proposals you put up but I do not give any commitment to introduce them.' The Government is working with the industry. So that is the answer to that point which was made. In investment in housing-public housing, the private rental market and home ownership-the Government has proved its credentials. In a very tough and stringent Budget it has brought down a very tight deficit and a domestic surplus. We have still been able to fund the bank package which protects the interest rate of 13 1/2 per cent for pre-2 April loans. We have done that at a cost of $145m. We have retained the first home owners scheme. I remind the House that the Opposition's proposal is virtually to abolish that scheme, for which there is expenditure and forward commitment of almost $1 billion and which has already helped 245,000 households into home ownership. We have allocated $210m for the continuation of that scheme in this very tough financial year. I have already said what our commitment is to public housing. When the States put in their matching funds, total funds will be almost $1.9 billion, which will construct about 22,000 new dwellings. The figures are that there should be about 14,500 new starts for public rental and about 7,500 new homes through subsidised home loans. That is a great effort. It shows the bona fides of our housing package with respect to the first home owners scheme and public housing. I conclude by examining the state of the industry, which was mentioned by the shadow Minister. The first thing to say is that, particularly as a result of the April package-no one disputes this-savings bank lending has been very strong indeed. My figures, which I get in advance of the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures, show that trend to be continuing through August and September. I think the figures for savings bank deposits come out today. I understand that they will be fairly strong for the month of August; we will find out about that later today. But the rate of lending is strong and the growth in deposits is reasonably strong. But let us look at the state of the industry. For the reason we have been over here on a number of occasions, the annualised rate in the June quarter this year slumped to about 117,000 starts. That is the Indicative Planning Council figure that was released to the Australian Housing Council the other day. The IPC says that we should be back to an annual rate of about 130,000 starts by the June quarter next year. As I have said, that is a moderately encouraging position. Of course, the future does depend to a great degree on interest rates. I have already covered that point and said that the outlook there is also moderately encouraging. I have said that the 13 1/2 per cent interest rate for pre-2 April loans is set in cement; it will not be altered. I say to the banks-I conclude on this note because it is not a bad note on which to conclude-that, given the moderately encouraging outlook for the industry and for interest rates, it is not the time to lift the 15 1/2 per cent rate. It would be far better to take a watch and hold approach and see what the immediate future holds for interest rates. I am moderately confident that interest rates for the rest of this year will trend down. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Beale's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker-Mrs E. E. Darling) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 47 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 21 —— 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. McLeay, LeoChynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J. Cohen, B. Martin, S. P. Cross, M. D. Mayer, H. Cunningham,. B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B. Dawkins, J. S. Milton, P. Duffy, M. J. Morris, AllanEdwards, Ronald Morris, PeterFatin, W. F. Mountford, J. G. Fitzgibbon, E. J. O'Keefe, N. P. Free, R. V. O'Neil, L. R. T. Gayler, J. Price, L. R. S. Gear, G. Saunderson, J. Gorman, R. N. J. Scholes, G. G. D. Grace, E. L. Scott, J. L. Griffiths, A. G. Simmons, D. W. Hand, G. L. Snow, J. H. Hayden, W. G. Staples, P. R. Holding, A. C. Theophanous, A. C. Howe, B. L. Tickner, R. E. Hollis, C. Uren, T. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) West, S. J. Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W. Jakobsen, C. A. Young, M. J. Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Jull, D. F. Beale, J. H. Katter, R. C. Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, R. C. Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S. Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J. Burr, M. A. McVeigh, D. T. Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G. Cameron, Ewen Millar, P. C. Carlton, J. J. Nehl, G. B. Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S. Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R. Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K. Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDowner, A. J. G. Rocher, A. C. Drummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M. Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F. Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M. Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J. Halverson, R. G. Watson, D. J. H. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P. Hodges, J. C. Lamb, A. H. Shack, P. D. Dubois, S. G. Hawker, D. P. M. Jones, Barry Cameron, IanCleeland, P. R. Everingham, P. A. E. Punch, G. F. Wilson, I. B. C. Keating, P. J. Sinclair, I. McC. Brown, John Moore, J. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Motion (by Mr West) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(12.16) —I rise to speak briefly on the third reading, cognisant of an incorrect ruling by another Deputy Speaker recently on what one is allowed to say on the third reading. I hasten to add that I want to make two comments specifically about two clauses to which I adverted on second reading, but not to recap on the entire second reading debate. As this States (Works and Housing) Assistance Amendment Bill comes to its third reading, I complain about the shocking discrimination against Tasmania in the program which is authorised by the legislation of the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West). I will repeat the numbers. The plain fact of the matter, as I have pointed out, is that in last year's Budget in the civil works program, which is critical in this area of housing and construction, the total amount appropriated for Tasmania for new works was a miserable $2.57m. That is less than one-tenth of the $33m which was made available to Tasmania in the same program in the last year of the Fraser Government. In relation to new works, the amount allocated-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! There is a specific ruling regarding the third reading-no two ways about it. That ruling is that members at this stage may not debate the question in toto but must refer specifically to a clause. Would you identify it? Mr HODGMAN —My remarks are specifically directed to clause 3 of the Bill, which relates to proposed sections 5a and 5b of the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Act and, secondly, to clause 4 of the Bill in relation to loans to States for public housing. I am very conscious of the ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I know exactly what you are driving at, but I want the opportunity to refer to both of those matters. I wish to refer to, firstly, grants to States in 1986-87 in respect of capital expenditure; secondly, advance payments to States for 1987-88 in respect of capital expenditure; and, thirdly, loans to States for public housing. I indicate that my remarks will take only a couple of moments. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —That is quite all right. Mr West —I should have nominated the full funds. Mr HODGMAN —It is all right for the Minister to mumble and grumble at the table. I am about to make the comment that the deal Tasmania received in 1986-87 under this legislation was on the basis of a miserable $520,000-that is all. Mr N.A. Brown —Miserable. Mr HODGMAN —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is quite right. Only $520,000 was provided in Budget Paper No. 12. It missed the Budget; it came out in a roneoed handout and it was a tack-on for `six houses'. Budget Paper No. 12 provided for six houses-$520,000. If we look at the Schedule to this Bill, we will see that Tasmania has been discriminated against by this Minister and this Government. Mr Hand —Rubbish! Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member can say `Rubbish'; he should go back to the embassy. It is all right for the honourable member, from his seat in Melbourne, but I am talking about decent people in Tasmania who cannot get housing because of this Government's disgraceful treatment of our State. In conclusion, this Minister should resign or should bring in an immediate amendment to this legislation to give Tasmania a fair deal. The Minister hates Tasmania; he has discriminated against our State. I have close contact with our State Premier and Minister for Housing. No government has treated Tasmania worse in housing than this Government, and it stands condemned for it. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(12.20) —in reply-I did not intend to speak on the third reading of this Bill, but I cannot let the remarks of the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) go unchallenged. As I said in replying to the debate on the second reading, if one looks at the figures in the last year of the coalition Government under the Commonwealth-State housing agreement in 1982-83, one sees that Tasmania received only $18.8m. In 1986-87 it received $27.7m completely by way of a grant. As an add-on in 1982-83 it received a mere $10m as its proportion of the State Government borrowing program. This year Tasmania will receive $30m; so the comparative figures are $29m in 1982-83 to Tasmania for public housing under the former Government, and this year $58m under this Government-a rise of 100 per cent. I repeat what I said in my reply to the second reading debate that all States nominated to the full extent available-except the State of Tasmania under the Gray Government. Even the National Party Government in Queensland nominated to the full extent of its arrangement. Certainly Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia nominated 100 per cent. If Tasmania had been concerned about housing shortages in that State in the area of public housing, it should have nominated all the Federal funds it was entitled to, but it refused to do so. So it is the Tasmanian Government which is not concerned with housing related issues in that State. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) -Order! I call the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown). I point out that the honourable member sought the call during the third reading debate but could not be seen by the Chair because the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) rose at the same time. Does the honourable member for Charlton have the leave of the House to speak at this stage? Leave granted. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton) —I thank the Chair for its indulgence. Briefly, I endorse the response of the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) to the matters raised by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). I seek to correct a couple of points the honourable member made. I do not know whether it was a slip of the tongue, but the honourable member referred to the allocation for Tasmania as $2.7m, but in fact the amount was 1,000 per cent more than that. It was $27.7m. Mr Hodgman —I rise on a point of order. I refer to Budget Paper No. 12, and to the figure of $2.57m in the civil works program. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr ROBERT BROWN —The Minister has indicated that the allocation to Tasmania under the Commonwealth-State housing agreement is $27.7m. I make two additional points in support of that. First, contrary to the claim made by the honourable member for Denison, Tasmania on a per capita basis has fared very well indeed, as he knows. Secondly, and even more tellingly, Tasmania under that agreement has fared much better under the Hawke Labor Government than it did under the coalition Government when two members, one continuing member from Tasmania and one retired member from that State, were responsible for housing. The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) has done more for public housing in Tasmania than did two of Tasmania's own members acting as Ministers responsible for housing in the term of the Fraser Government. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 20 August, on motion by Mr Howe: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(12.25) —The Social Security Amendment (Reciprocity with Italy) Bill was first foreshadowed by a coalition Minister for Social Security in 1982. The initiative was announced by the then Minister Senator Chaney who foreshadowed the intention of the Liberal-National parties to proceed with the development of proportional portability as a concept for the payment of pensions to Australians who returned to their country of origin after a period of residence in Australia. For that reason the Liberal and National parties support the concept and the direction in which the Government is moving with this legislation. Therefore, we do not oppose it. Notwithstanding, we have significant reservations about the direction and the mechanics of the action taken by the Government and also about the way in which it is negotiating these agreements. I wish to spend a few moments outlining, for the benefit of those members who have not read the Bill, the contents of the legislation. Basically the Bill facilitates a reciprocal social security agreement between Australia and Italy. It represents the implementation of negotiations that have been conducted over several months to ensure that we have reciprocity and proportional portability of social security benefits, and in particular age pensions, between Australia and Italy. The Opposition has some concerns about the Labor Government's approach to this issue. We are concerned about its priorities, the mechanics of the scheme and the way the scheme is to be implemented. It is worth reflecting that much of this negotiation and legislation arises from what could be described only as a rush of blood to the head of a former Labor Prime Minister, one Gough Whitlam. In 1974 Prime Minister Whitlam announced, in a gesture of largesse, that all Australian pensions would henceforth be portable and that if one were entitled to a pension in Australia one would be so entitled overseas. It was a magnanimous gesture, but puts considerable strain on the Australian taxpayer and takes no account of the international equities of the payment of social security benefits nor of the different systems of social security operating in Australia and many other Western and developed nations throughout the world. The principal difference is that Australia runs a non-contributory, needs-based social security system, whereas many other countries throughout the Western world run a needs-based and also contributory social security system, particularly in the case of retirement income policy. It is interesting that this Government, with its so-called highly developed policies on social security, has done nothing to bring Australia into line with the rest of the world. From that we must conclude either that it does not have any policy or any intention of making significant changes to the Australian social security system, or that it is convinced that the Australian system is right and everybody else is wrong. Mr Howe —I would be interested to hear your policy. Mr BLUNT —The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) will hear our policy in due course. The Minister must remember that he is the one who is in government and that he should be explaining his Government's policy. It is similar to the Government's attitude to the fringe benefits tax. He is the Minister for Social Security, he has the Department, he has all the consultants working on reports and he says to the Opposition, `Please tell us your policy because I am devoid of ideas'. The Minister will hear our policy when the election is called, and he should have a better policy than he has at present because the Australian people have had enough of the way he is running our social security system. In fact, the Minister's competence in running that system is called into question every day in nearly every newspaper in Australia. They raise questions of fraud, overpayment and equity in the payment of age pensions. The Minister is about to change the assets test for the sixth time. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Will the honourable member and the Minister stop carrying on a conversation across the chamber. Will the honourable member address his remarks to the chamber through the Chair? Mr BLUNT —I heed your comments, Madam Deputy Speaker, and would also request that you direct the Minister for Health to refrain from conducting a loud and voluble conversation with the Minister for Social Security, which is deliberately designed to distract me. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I have called the honourable member for Richmond and expect him to speak to the question to hand. It is quite within the capabilities of the Chair to carry out Standing Orders. Mr BLUNT —As I was saying, this Bill provides for proportional portability of pensions between Australia and Italy. There are four main principles covered in the legislation and I believe they are all quite logical and deserve bipartisan support in this House. The principles could be summarised by saying that there is a concept of shared responsibility-that is, each country in which the person has been resident will accept responsibility for that person's social security payments and financial maintenance in the future. There is equality of treatment between the two countries and there is totalisation of either residence or contributions or both and that highlights the difference between Australia's system of social security and systems operating overseas. The whole system operates on a pro rata basis and it is this pro rata basis which brings problems to light in relation to this agreement. When the Minister for Social Security made certain statements earlier this year and last year about proportional portability of pensions, he was at considerable pains to stress that no one would be worse off. He went to great lengths in his Press releases to say that some Australians would receive extra income, but no Australians would be worse off. That is patently not correct and I believe that it is encumbent upon the Minister and the Government to clarify exactly the implications and consequences of the agreement they have negotiated with Italy and how it will operate within the Australian system. Let me quote an example. Proportional portability does not apply to a person who has been a resident of Australia or an absent resident of Australia on 8 May 1985 and who begins to receive a pension before 1 January 1996. However, if a man arrived in Australia on 7 May 1985 and turned 65 on 2 January 1996, he would receive only 43 per cent of an Australian pension if he left Australia and went to a country with which Australia had a reciprocal proportional pension agreement. A one or two-day difference in the birth date-that is, the qualifying time for an age pension in Australia-can result in a 57 per cent drop in his entitlement to an Australian age pension, other factors being equal. I refer to many of the statements made by the Minister, particularly the one in his Press release dated 7 November 1985, reference No. 67/85. On page 2 he says: Many in Australia will get extra payments from overseas, but none will be worse off. I think I have demonstrated conclusively that many Australians will be worse off and will be worse off in a very arbitrary way because of the incidence of both their birth date and the arbitrary date selected for the implementation of this agreement. Quite frankly, there will always be problems with the introduction of such an agreement, but it is encumbent upon the Minister to acknowledge that there are problems. The Australian ethnic communities are also capable of conducting the same analysis to which I have just referred and that is why among the ethnic communities representative of the Greek, Italian and perhaps some other communities in Australia at present there is concern about the implications of this agreement and its consequences for their citizens in Australia. It does not behove the Minister at all to ignore this problem and pretend that it does not exist. It would be far more honest and forthright for the Minister to acknowledge that the problem exists and that some people will be disadvantaged by the arbitrary operation of these dates. If he were genuine in his approach to these negotiations, given that there is bipartisan support for the concept of proportional portability of pensions, he would recognise that he could have explained how the scheme would operate and there would not have been any significant political backlash. That is not the only significant problem with the proposals that are being implemented by this Labor Government. There is an inherent assumption in this agreement that Australians who were not born in this country will return to their country of origin. That is not necessarily true. Let me explain the consequences of that assumption for some people who were born outside Australia, who lived and worked for some time in their country of birth, made a contribution to that country's social security scheme, but perhaps did not reach the trigger point, the point at which they are entitled to a payment under that country's scheme. Such people come to Australia and under the scheme proposed by the Minister they earn an entitlement to an Australian social security payment and, for the sake of simplicity, let me assume that it is an age pension. Let us take the hypothetical example of a person born in Greece who works in that country for perhaps 30 years. He comes to Australia and earns an age pension proportional entitlement in Australia and then goes to, say, Italy. What will be the consequences for that person? Perhaps he will not have an entitlement under the Greek system to be paid in Italy; there will only be a proportional entitlement under the Australian system as a result of the proposal to be implemented by the Minister, and when that person goes to Italy he will have no entitlement under the Italian system. I believe that it would be appropriate for the Minister to face up to those consequences. The example that I have cited, between Greece, Italy and Australia, could perhaps be described as extreme, but it is not unusual for people born in Europe to return to Europe, but not to the country of their birth. One could think of cases of people born in Germany, France, Belgium, or the Netherlands who might come to Australia to work for a period, earn only a part entitlement to an Australian age pension and because of the location of their families or where their children may have settled in Europe, they do not return to the country of their birth so they have no entitlement under that third country's social security system. How does the Minister propose to accommodate such an example under the agreement that he has negotiated here? What will be the consequences if, in the future, he negotiates proportional portability agreements with those third countries, yet the person whom we are discussing has no entitlement in those countries? The Minister must be aware of these possibilities, he must have been advised by his Department of the consequences of this legislation and of these agreements as the number of proportional agreements negotiated by Australia increases significantly. The Minister owes an explanation not only to the Opposition but also to the Australian community. How does he see the scheme operating in the future? I am also concerned about this Government's priorities in the negotiation of proportional portability agreements and reciprocal agreements for pensions. Earlier this year and late last year we had considerable debate about the payment of social security benefits to New Zealanders living in Australia. I do not want to raise the detail of that particular debate at this time, but I do want to raise the relationship between Australia and New Zealand in terms of social security. As I have said previously, Australia has portability of social security benefits, an initiative of the Whitlam Labor Government; New Zealand does not. New Zealanders who have lived and worked in that country and who have paid tax do not, if they move to Australia, have an entitlement to receive their New Zealand benefits in this country. Of course under the agreement recently renegotiated between Australia and New Zealand, they have an entitlement to receive Australian benefits. It is encumbent upon the Minister to explain why, at the time of renegotiating the agreement with the New Zealand Government to accommodate certain administrative problems and potential for fraud, abuse and manipulation which initially he said did not exist, the question of proportional portability of pensions was not raised and was not made part of that agreement. Mr Howe —It was raised. Mr BLUNT —The Minister says that it was raised, but I still do not know why we do not have a higher priority for negotiating a similar agreement with a very close trans-Tasman neighbour like New Zealand. The Minister should explain that publicly and in some detail. Of course, the same comment can be applied to the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has one of the most impertinent attitudes that could be imagined to the payment of pensions to its former citizens who are now resident in Australia. Former residents of the United Kingdom with an entitlement to United Kingdom pensions are paid those pensions at the rate and at the level of their entitlement on the date of their departure from the United Kingdom. Many of these people come to Australia and over the period of their residence in Australia the rate of inflation in the United Kingdom and our much higher rate of inflation mean that the effectiveness of pension payments made from the United Kingdom, notwithstanding our ever declining dollar, is inadequate. The United Kingdom Government has for many years refused point blank to renegotiate the agreement and refused to adjust pensions paid to former citizens of the United Kingdom who are now resident in Australia in order to account for inflation in both the United Kingdom and Australia. The Australian Government is forced therefore to top up those United Kingdom pensions to adjust for changes in the exchange rate and inflation rate. I am told-I do not have any accurate figures for this-that there are up to 800,000 former residents of the United Kingdom with potential pension entitlements in Australia. Mr Howe —Stop putting out misinformation. Mr BLUNT —I would be interested if the Department of Social Security or the Minister could, at some time, give me some indication as to the accuracy of that figure. I would like to know the exact number of former United Kingdom residents living in Australia who receive pensions which are topped up by the Australian social security system. It strikes me that there must be an absolute priority for negotiating a reciprocal portable agreement between Australia and the United Kingdom. While this Government is so preoccupied with negotiating with the United Kingdom over the cleaning up of former atomic test sites in South Australia, it could direct the same attention and zeal into renegotiating this agreement. Mr Howe —I have publicly stated that we are renegotiating the United Kingdom agreement. Mr BLUNT —Perhaps it could direct the same public pressure to those negotiations that would be warranted by the significance of the relationship between the United Kingdom and Australia. This Government is running around in circles in terms of social security. The Minister is lying back at the table, interjecting at will and suggesting that certain things are not the case. The reality is that there is so much wrong with the Australian social security system that he does not know where to start. Yesterday he tabled a 38-page discussion paper on maintenance payments, which conflicts with previous Press statements. We have seen in Budget estimates in relation to the payment of Australian pensions overseas that he proposes to withdraw the two resident Australians from the London office, which is responsible for the administration of Australian pension or social security payments to the United Kingdom, Europe and Africa. It is hoped that the Department of Foreign Affairs will step into the breach and fulfil the administrative arrangements. We pay about $87m worth of social security benefits to Europe, the United Kingdom and Africa. We have two Australian officials over there at present, but the Government proposes to bring them home. I think that is ample evidence of the priority that the Government attaches to maintaining this system. We have a very complex system of social security, which is based on entitlements and obligations of some people to comply with the requirements for eligibility of that system. In terms of the priorities attached to negotiating agreements, we see no evidence of the Government's adopting a rational approach which reflects financial priorities and population linkages. We see no evidence of the Government's determination to ensure that the system is internally consistent, by ensuring that the requirements are applied equally and with equal force to Australians who are resident in Australia and Australians with an entitlement who are resident outside Australia. We see a continuation of the double standards and a continuation of the need to fine tune the system to cope with the fundamental flaws that arise. We see a reluctance on the part of the Government to address the fundamental problems in the system and to undertake significant reform. However, we see significant lampooning and significant rhetoric from the Minister, but we are still waiting to see a full-blown social security policy. I am still waiting to see the same determination on the part of this Minister as was evidenced by a former Labor Minister, the Hon. Bill Hayden when he was Minister for Social Security, who went to the Department with an agenda, a set of objectives and a capacity to change the system. The present Minister seems to be ambling along, dividing his time between fighting on behalf of the left wing faction of the Labor Party and trying to cope with the immensely complex and difficult problems of social security in Australia. The Government's attempt to address the problem of retirement income policy has been an absolute failure which will be paralleled with its attempt to come to grips with the taxation of fringe benefits in Australia. Mr Deputy Speaker, I remind you that there is a considerable parallel between it and the actions of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to rescue his Government from the mire of the assets test, announcing on the run that he would have a review of the assets test, which went on and on and on. Until last week we had the fifth version, and I am told that in a Bill to be introduced in this place later we will see further changes to the assets test and its implementation, which will take us to the sixth version. I ask this House and the Government whether we will see six, seven or eight versions of the fringe benefits tax. I believe it is incumbent upon this Government to address the question of social security equity seriously, not to restrict itself to handing out statements in the form of Press releases which contain only the most superficial comment and which contain no significant discussion or debate upon the consequences of these changes for the Australian community and, in particular, the Australian ethnic community. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 106A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The honourable member for Richmond will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(12.45) —The Government has fulfilled nearly two years of its current term, its second in office, and is now exhibiting signs of governing under very great pressure. The conjecture running in some of the media of this country is that it may cut its losses and go to an election, perhaps later this year. That is, indeed, a matter of conjecture and only the handling by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) of the current bungling of the fringe benefits tax will tell us, by the time the end of the year is upon us, what his intentions are. But it is interesting to reflect, Mr Deputy Speaker, that there will probably be less than 20 sitting weeks of Parliament available to honourable members before the Government goes to the next election in the natural fulfilment of its three-year term. It is interesting to see the Prime Minister under so much pressure as he bungles, day after day in this House and in the media, the handling of the fringe benefits tax. He has learnt little from his bungling of earlier proposals such as the assets test and lurches from one crisis to another under Opposition questioning as to whether or not the tax will apply to certain groups within the community. So we await with great interest the developments of the Government's response to the public rejection of the fringe benefits tax. This afternoon I want to refer briefly to one of Australia's greatest problems. It is one which is announced each month by the publication of Australia's overseas trade balances. It is such a problem that the Government has no solution for it and, by ignoring the full impact on the Australian community of the dramatic reversal in overseas trade, the Government seems to be saying to the Australian community that it does not know what to do about it. In August the reversal amounted to $1.235 billion. For the running year from August to August the deficiency in our overseas trade balance totalled $13.92 billion. By this time next year it is expected that there will be such a degree of accumulated imbalance in our trade that each Australian will owe, overseas, $7,000. What a burden to hand on to the future generation! It is in the light of this tremendous, accruing deterioration of our balance of trade that one looks with interest at the meagre attention that the Government is giving to that problem. I notice in today's Australian Financial Review a report-the subject is referred to in other papers also-on a new announcement by the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins). It is headed `New Drive aims at $3.5bn' and relates to the Minister's attempt to increase Australia's industrial exports. Apparently the Minister intends to achieve this by an expenditure of $2m. That is a laughable investment, I believe, in relation to the severity of the challenge and the need to revitalise our industrial exports. The Government obviously intends to do little indeed in this regard. We read of an expenditure of $2m to procure an improvement of $3,500m in export income. We read of round-the-world air trip prizes for small business people who do well in producing income. I am not decrying the measures that the Government has announced. At least it is giving some attention to this vast problem, but it is entirely insufficient to rely on giving prizes to peak exporters in small industries, in the course of a $2m promotion which seeks to energise Australian export managers, and to rely on import replacement programs based on providing new logos for Australian made goods. That is fiddling at the edges of this enormous problem for Australia. We are, of course, left in the dramatically reliant situation of depending for export earnings upon the traditional bases of primary industry and the resource industries. Wool, meat, wheat, coal, iron ore and metals are the only factors included in a little synopsis of Australia's exports-which is included in a review of the Australian economy put out by the Commonwealth Bank-of the 13 per cent or some such proportion of our exports which derive from an industrial base. At this time, when the great resource and primary industries are under enormous pressure, because of the adverse terms of trade, in regard to the earnings that they can bring into this country we have an opportunity as a community and as a government to do something real about promoting industrial exports from Australia. The Government sees the taxation system of this country too much as a matter of collecting income for the Government rather than an instrument of policy. In the Fraser years the Government decided that Australian industry needed an infusion of new investment in plant and equipment. I think all honourable members will remember the effect of the Fraser Government's policy of offering an investment taxation allowance which started off at the dramatically high figure of 40 per cent. It had the equally dramatic effect of putting billions of dollars worth of new plant and equipment into Australian productive enterprises. That was a direct response to a direct incentive. We know also that a great deal of the success of the Australian film industry is based on the very real incentives that have been provided through the taxation system. I put it to the Government that that is the only real way to energise potential industrial exporters-rather than seek, by the giving of prizes to find a simple answer. The Government can give prizes too if it likes. The answer is not to spend a paltry $2m on promoting export managers' activities, but rather give real incentive to exporters through the taxation system. I put it to the House that about 13 per cent of Australia's manufactures are exported. The best figures available to me at the moment-they are a little out of date-reveal that in 1983 manufacturing companies made gross profits of just under $8 billion. After allowing for interest and depreciation totalling $4,200m and taxation of $1,758m, they were left with a profit of $1,978m. If one adjusts the figures roughly, as one must, from 1983 to the present because of the lack of information available, one arrives at the fact that, with 13 per cent of industrial activity related to exports, Australian secondary industry is paying approximately $350m a year in taxation on income earned from such exports. The Government is in the process of making rather dramatic changes in the taxation system of this country and I put it that there should be a trade-off between the relief that it is giving to individual taxpayers and the provision of incentives for the export of industrial products. It could in fact reduce the taxable profits earned by Australian manufacturers on exports to 20c in the dollar merely by the expenditure of several hundred million dollars in taxation relief. That would indeed provide a real incentive for industries in this country. I am not asking the Government to forgo revenue but saying that the Government should trade off its search for popularity in the community-by way of reducing personal income tax-against making certain that there are other incentives than the low value of the dollar. It should make certain that Australian exporters are aware that if they get out there and sell our manufactured goods overseas they will get a real reward in their annual profit and bank balance. That is the way in which people respond-not to exhortation but to policy changes that put more profits in the bank at the end of the year. It would enable companies to compete with the lower costs in other countries. I ask the Government to reconsider the paltry sums that it is expending on meeting our export problem and make a real contribution, in the course of its taxation changes, to coming down heavily in favour of relieving the tax burden on exporters of industrial products. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(12.55) —In two days President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev will meet in Iceland. Their meeting comes after nine months of uncertainty about whether a second summit meeting will be possible and several weeks of wrangling over Nicholas Daniloff, the American journalist arrested in Moscow and Gennadi Zhakarov, the Russian diplomat arrested in New York. After much negotiation, agreement was reached to exchange these two and Yuri Orlov, a Russian human rights campaigner, thus making way for this weekend's meeting. Those concerned with super-power relations are relieved. While the Soviet Union and United States of America leaders are talking the possibility of achieving agreement on important arms control and disarmament measures is enhanced and the danger of conflict is reduced. Towards the end of a year in which aggression, violence and nuclear accidents have dominated the news, the Reykjavik meeting is a sign of hope. A second recent sign of hope was the agreement reached on September 22 at the Stockholm based conference on confidence and security building measurements and disarmament in Europe. That agreement was the first to cover conventional military forces throughout Europe. All countries in Europe except Albania have agreed to provide to each other an annual calendar of their planned military manoeuvres. The significance of this agreement is that it makes it easier to detect any threatened military activity. The agreement will reduce insecurity and build confidence between the countries of Europe. However, my purpose in speaking today is to draw attention to a third and less well-known sign of hope, the work of Parliamentarians Global Action. There have been two significant results from the work of that organisation this year-progress on the establishment of a global seismic network for verification of a nuclear test ban treaty and agreement for on-site inspection of nuclear test sites in the Soviet Union and the United States by non-government scientists. Parliamentarians Global Action was formerly known as Parliamentarians for World Order and was launched in 1980. It has a membership of about 600 members of national parliaments in about 35 countries representing the full spectrum of political parties. The members of Parliamentarians Global Action recognise that the only way to provide security for our constituents and countries, and ensure a future for humanity, is through world-wide demilitarisation, economic development and strengthened world institutions. Working together across frontiers we seek to act as catalysts to promote constructive change in the international community. I attended the organisation's annual forum at the United Nations Organisation meeting in New York in October of last year and am the Australian member of the PGA Council. One of the major activities of PGA has been the organisation of the five continent peace initiative. This initiative began a couple of years ago and includes the leaders of six major non-aligned countries-Argentina, India, Mexico, Tanzania, Sweden and Greece. These six leaders have met several times and have been in frequent contact with the two super-power leaders, calling for a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty as a crucial step towards ending the arms race. A major stumbling block in the test ban debate has been the issue of verification. At the urging of PGA the six leaders entered the verification debate. PGA commissioned a report on the feasibility of verification of a test moratorium, including the technical details necessary for implementing such a plan, from several eminent United States scientists. With this study as background, the six leaders made a series of verification proposals in personal correspondence with Reagan and Gorbachev. In a message delivered just before the super-power summit in Geneva in November of last year, the six proposed a nuclear testing moratorium with verification measures and offered their countries as locations for seismological verification stations. Within weeks, in a major shift from its traditional policies, the Soviet Union accepted the proposals of a group of six. There was other correspondence between the Six and Gorbachev, in March and April of this year, which contributed to encouraging the Soviet Union to extend its test moratorium. The most recent action by the six leaders was a meeting in Mexico in August. In the communique issued after the Mexico meeting the six nations offered the funds, the personnel and the equipment to back up their concrete verification proposal. The annual cost of the program, which the six countries will provide, is estimated to be about US$10m. The Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) was amongst a number of leaders who welcomed the Mexico declaration on disarmament. The timing of the Mexico meeting of the six leaders turned out to be opportune, for on the day after they made their proposals public the United States House of Representatives passed, by 234 votes to 155, an amendment to the Defense Authorisation Bill which provided for a cut-off in funding of nuclear testing for one year beginning 1 January 1987. The condition for this cut-off is that the Soviets do not resume testing during that time. The proposal to cut off funding was initiated by several members of Parliamentarians Global Action including Tom Downey, who is one of the presidents. The fortunate timing and linkage of the six-nation summit and United States House of Representatives vote showed that co-ordinated efforts can have a positive bearing on the disarmament climate. The other initiative in which PGA has been involved this year is the agreement by the Soviet Union to allow on-site verification by non-government scientists. The Global Action delegation which went to Moscow in April also met with members of the Soviet National Academy of Sciences, thereby setting the stage for the United States National Resources Defense Council's project, under which a team of United States seismologists will set up seismometers at the Soviet test site of Semipalatinsk in July and at the United States test site in New Mexico. This is really an extraordinary breakthrough because, after many years of opposition to on-site inspection, the Soviet Union has now agreed to it. It is regrettable that so far this has been limited to verification by non-Government scientists but that may well lead later to intergovernmental agreement to on-site verification. The Soviet Union has maintained a test moratorium since August 1985, yet the Reagan Administration remains obdurately opposed to a testing moratorium. This is despite the fact that both the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate have now voted in favour of a testing moratorium. The United States administration claims not only that verification remains a problem but also that it must continue to test existing weapons to make sure that they are working. Perhaps both are actual reasons for the administration's opposition but it seems likely also that testing requirements for the strategic defence initiative, Star Wars-a proposal under which includes a nuclear explosion-driven X-ray laser in space-represent one of the important reasons for the refusal to join the Soviet Union in a testing moratorium. The Soviet Union has said that it wants to put a test moratorium on the agenda of the Reagan-Gorbachev summit. In fact, Gorbachev has said that he wants to include this in the discussions in Iceland on Saturday and Sunday. Mr Deputy Speaker, the principal reason for this speech is to draw attention to the value of activity outside the formal channels of Government and to show that non-government organisations can play a significant role in changing the climate and contributing practically to arms control and disarmament agreements. It is encouraging to have these glimmers of hope because without them many would despair about the desperately serious threat to the survival of human kind which the arms race involves. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(1.05) —Last year coal export shipments to Japan were held up in New South Wales ports. Twenty ships were at anchor, idle! Exports suffered, mines were closed, mining jobs were lost, and all because of a strike over an all too familiar Australian restrictive work practice-overmanning. This was not a shipping strike, nor was it a mining strike. The economic chaos was caused by the Australian Federated Union of Locomotive Enginemen. This was a strike over a manning issue in the railways. It was a strike in which the unions' claim was repudiated by the arbitral authorities and even condemned by Mr Wran, the then Premier of New South Wales. It was a strike which served to illustrate that a union can wreak havoc and not be liable for the losses incurred. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has made a contribution to the development of restrictive work practices in Australia. During his period as President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions he condoned and encouraged these counter-productive work practices and attitudes. Now, as Prime Minister, he resorts yet again to another summit to resolve the problem. This issue will be resolved on the factory floor, not by so-called summitry between big government, big unions and big business. At least the Prime Minister has become aware that there is a problem and that Australia's future is at risk because we are no longer competitive or efficient in world terms. On September 15, 1986, the Economic Planning Advisory Council produced a paper outlining the difficulties facing Australian industry as a result of the effect on productivity of restrictive work practices, which it defined as: Particular ways of working which are introduced and maintained for reasons other than safety, effectiveness and efficiency. As such, they have a dubious rationale, particularly in today's economic environment, and collectively contribute to an inflexibly organised and underutilised work force with reduced individual satisfaction from, and motivation to, work. This feeds back into a lower productivity syndrome. The paper identifies areas where these restrictive practices have grown up during times of prosperity since World War II and are no longer to be tolerated in these tougher economic times. Accommodating management attitudes allowed these practices to develop. I refer to overmanning, demarcation by tradesmen and unions, a reluctance of the work force to adopt new technology and the retention of old methods. The condoned practices of compulsory overtime have become the norm, and the excessive tea breaks, late starting times and early knock-off times have become institutionalised work practices which militate against efficiency and good morale. In the mining industry, and the coal industry in particular, there has been a gradual and casual approach to the changeover time taken between shifts. This has resulted in six hours of work being achieved during an eight-hour shift. What is more, the coal industry has accepted the inefficient practice of having productive work from Monday until Friday only. What remarkable under utilisation of resources in such a capital intensive industry. EPAC suggests that industry should move from a craft-based union structure to industry-based unions where a co-operative effort will ensure profitability and job opportunities. Management, in its turn, needs to move away from the `we and they' syndrome, where there is a separation of the roles between the work force and managers. Industry protection from the chill winds of international competition fosters and encourages such restrictive work attitudes and the capital and export nature of some of our major mining projects encourages these outdated work practices in the interest of production and short term profits. In recent months, the work practices of the Pilbara region have brought Australia's export industries and working conditions into sharp focus. The sacking of 1,200 workers at Robe River identified a number of problems that had been glossed over by both management and unions in the past. I appreciate the problems of isolation, difficult working conditions and repetitive work activity with little tangible result for hours worked, but the local rules of work developed to outrageous proportions. For instance, front end loaders worth between $1m and $2m were utilised for about six hours during an eight-hour shift, reducing the productivity of that piece of equipment by 25 per cent. Union stand over tactics and management weakness had allowed the practice to develop to this alarming degree because export orders had been profitable and management's main objective had been to fill the ships and not worry too much about productivity in the mine itself. The widely-publicised dispute between the Electrical Trades Union and the South East Queensland Electricity Board clearly demonstrated restrictive trade practices in their worst form. On that occasion, the Electrical Trades Union had restrictions on the use of contractors and insisted on prescribing the number and classification of employees and enforcing the strict demarcation of work. After a long and protracted dispute involving the Queensland Government, the issues were resolved with common sense prevailing and productivity returning to normal levels. At Port Hedland last year the strategic use of stop work meetings at a critical time ensured that the export of iron ore was delayed for five days because the necessary rising tide had passed. Therefore, the ore carrier remained yet another day. This cost a Japanese importer $100,000 and soured his relationship with Australia. In the woolbroking business, technology has overwhelmed outdated union practices and attitudes. In Geelong, which has historically been a major wool handling centre for Victoria, about 700 storemen and packers were handling the receival of western Victoria's wool clip. Now about 40 persons do the same job. All bales are now handled with fork-lifts and hardly a bale is touched by human hands. During the mid-1970s the storemen and packers, led by Simon Crean, as Assistant Secretary, managed to have inserted in the award the proviso that bales may weigh no more than 204 kilograms and no less than 110 kilograms. The advent of power presses would ensure that much heavier bales could be pressed-in the interests of efficiency and cost saving. However Simon Crean's outdated, obsolete and ridiculous provision that wool bales may weigh no more than 204 kilograms remains in practice because of an arbitration ruling in 1976 to bring about so-called industrial peace. How will Australia ever become competitive in export terms given the persistence with this outdated practice in a modern, single floor wool handling complex using modern mechanical equipment? Mr Charlie Fitzgibbon who, in recent times, has been most supportive of the coalition's industrial relations policy of achieving a more flexible wages system, has added his support to the removal of restrictive practices within industry and has said: Improving the ability of our industries to compete against intensifying competition, both at home and abroad, requires reform in the area of restrictive trade practices. I would like to endorse the statement made by Mr Fred Helmer, the Australian managing director of the management consultancy firm, McKinsey and Co, that for an employee to be productive a job must have meaning, an element of creativity and performed in an atmosphere of trust. Without trust industrial relations break down, enthusiasm is hard to muster and people will not innovate. The key objective of the Federal Opposition's industrial relations policy is prosperity through productivity, more jobs, industrial harmony, work place flexibility and reduced union power. Unions which foster restrictive work practices sabotage Australia's overseas trade and employment opportunities and undermine the living standards of employees and their families. They will ultimately be seen as troglodytes and a barrier to economic progress. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(1.13) —Two weeks ago the Leader of the Opposition in Queensland, Nev Warburton, raised the issue of a National Party official, an ex-Senate candidate, Michael Behan, being given a loan of $145,000 at the direction of a National Party cabinet Minister despite a recommendation by the Agricultural Bank that the loan application not be approved. It has now been discovered that $85,000 of the $145,000 was, in fact, Commonwealth money lent to Queensland under the National Disaster Relief Scheme. It had been lent at 4 per cent. Because of the efforts by the Premier of Queensland to cover up the issue, it has taken quite a period for the facts to emerge. When finally he was confronted by the media he referred to the loan as a `lousy $145,000'. I would suggest to National Party members here, and to the Government of Queensland and its Premier, that there would be tens of thousands of primary producers who would certainly not think of a loan of $145,000 as representing a lousy amount. As Nev Warburton said so correctly, many a farmer has virtually got down on his knees to the Agricultural Bank and the Rural Reconstruction Board for much less than a `lousy $145,000', as Mr Bjelke-Petersen calls it, and has been refused. It is proof of the special types of preference that apparently is given to the National Party citizens, and of the ministerial interference that does take place. I wonder on how many other occasions similar politically motivated deeds have been done for National Party supporters and members, but never aired. The fact is, unless some public servant in Queensland gets a fit of conscience that he cannot cop any longer, no one seems to know what is going on. After all, it took months of Opposition digging and pressure from the media for the truth to come out about the $40,000 that was misappropriated from the Queensland Day Committee. That committee's activities came under the Premier himself but he tried to evade his ministerial responsibilities. Now we all know that another person is to face court in December on charges of misappropriating hundreds of thousands of dollars of public funds through that person's link with the Queensland Film Corporation and the Tourism and Arts Departments. Again, it was only after months and months of hounding that the National Party Government of Queensland admitted the truth behind the allegations of misappropriation. Every attempt was made to cover them up and conduct a disinformation campaign within the media. The latest episode concerns another public servant-linked with the Sports Department-and the fictitious granting of the sum of $9,000 to a sporting club. Again, the issue came to light only because of a leak to the Queensland Opposition. I am told that the figure of $9,000 could blow out into tens of thousands of dollars. The fact is that Queensland needs some sort of Public Accounts Committee but the chance of that occurring under the present Queensland Government is nil because there has been a motion on the Notice Paper concerning it for five years. Corruption in the National Party of Queensland is not a new characteristic, as some might think. Back in July 1977 a company by the name of Houston Oil and Minerals was given an authority to prospect for coal at a place called Oakey Creek. It was given that authority without public tender. In July 1980 the National Party-dominated Cabinet approved a consortium's application to develop the Winchester South coal field, even though the vast majority of 31 other applications that were received were never considered. In 1982 a company called Maralinga, which was controlled by a well-known National Party political personality, was allowed to do a sale and switch deal on a milk entitlement, which resulted in massive personal profit for his company even though the transfer was contrary to the policy of the Milk Entitlement Committee. In September 1982, a Four Corners report told the story of a prominent businessman who, after donating $100,000 to the Senior Citizens Hospice in the Premier's electorate, received a knighthood. In the same program the expelled National Party member, Lindsay Hartwig, exposed an approach made to him to donate $10,000 to the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation if he wanted to get into Cabinet. Again on the same program the State Secretary of the Liberal Party at that time, Stephen Litchfield, said that from complaints that he had received from business people it was the belief in Queensland that if you wanted to do business in that State you had to donate to the National Party and get close to it. Where in any other part of Australia would the head of a quango, a peanut marketing board, be able to pay himself a salary that is more than the Premier gets, take 12 overseas trips, fully paid, not be able to account for tens of thousands of dollars within operations of the marketing board, and get away with it? Where else than in Queensland could we find a politician able to have a decision to build a powerhouse in one area of the State-in this instance, Millmerran-changed to his own electorate, Tarong, where he had nearby mining leases? In doing so that cost the taxpayers $259m and totally overturned the State Electricity Commission's recommendation. Where else than in Queensland would you find taxpayers' money totally wasted by a government for political purposes? Twenty million dollars that were given by the Federal Government for roads in North Queensland has never been accounted for. It was used, we think, on the Brisbane electrification system. Four million dollars was given for a water scheme in the Gulf of Carpentaria. It is believed that it was used for a dam in an area near where the Premier's son has a property. Tens of millions of dollars have been wasted. Tens of millions of dollars have been misappropriated. Where else than in Queensland would we find a government using taxpayers' money to pay for a five-minute prime time television propaganda program every Sunday evening on every commercial television station, just before the 6 o'clock news? Where else than in Queensland would you find a government that has spent tens of millions of dollars on government aeroplanes but gives no information as to who uses them, where they go and for what purpose? The Government of Queensland has to be made accountable. It is not only the Behan affair. That fades into insignificance against one of the issues raised in July of this year: In 1982 the Queensland Government resumed land for the Burdekin Dam. The compensation to be paid was very carefully checked out by the valuers of the Water Resources Commission. It has now been revealed that a person, who just happens to be a relative of an ex-State member, Vicky Kippin, and is an ex-National Party member-a fellow by the name of Cox-although evidence was given to a land court hearing in July by the valuer of the Water Resources Commission that the land was worth $1,228,413, on his own admission to the court personally wrote to and saw the Premier, and received as compensation not $1.228m but $2,448,000-of taxpayers' money. The latest episode is that concerning Mr Bond and the Premier. I want to read from a confidential letter that I have and that I believe the Parliament ought to know about: Attention: Mr D. R. Aspinall. Thank you for letter to Biggs and Biggs dated 22.11.85, which I have now seen. Please note that solicitors for Mr Bjelke-Petersen have phoned this morning claiming Premier insists matter is settled for $400,000 plus costs. Insurers have had no discussions with Mr Bond and believe that recent developments have irretrievably prejudiced their position. This matter has gone from being dormant and one both sides could have expected QTQ to win to a position where the Premier expects $400,000 plus costs and any normal commercial resolution appears impossible. We are instructed that insurers have no wish to remain involved following actions which have breached policy requirements and hereby deny liability. We suggest the following occur: 1. QTQ immediately instructs its own solicitors to act in this matter. Biggs and Biggs may be prepared to remain involved but this would have to be on the express understanding that future instructions and liability for fees rests with QTQ and not insurers. 2. You give urgent consideration to the ``settlement'' with the plaintiff. If the terms which Mr Bond and the plaintiff discussed were expected to create goodwill, then indications from the plaintiff's solicitors are that this could be jeopardised by further delay. We note that the discussions which have occurred provide for an unprecedented amount to be paid to the plaintiff. We would strongly urge that such terms be treated as strictly confidential as the sum involved could only raise the expectations of other plaintiffs and potential plaintiffs. Bruce Burke. We have here surely the proof that the Queensland National Party Government is the best government money can buy and all that counts is whether you can afford to buy it. Here we have it stated in correspondence, which I table in this House, where Mr Bond expected to buy or create goodwill. People know that when you buy a business a component of that purchase is goodwill and here is clear evidence that Mr Bond here was buying his way into Queensland. He was buying the Premier of Queensland. He was buying goodwill. If ever there was a need for a full and thorough investigation into some sort of deal in the State of Queensland, it has to be the Bond Corporation rort with the Premier of Queensland. Certainly the Queensland National Party is the best government that money can buy. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(1.23) —Mr Deputy Speaker, it is easily seen why the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) was the permanent Leader of the Opposition in Queensland. I rise in this grievance debate, both as a long time sports lover and a proud Queenslander, and wish to expose the dishonesty of the Australian Labor Party's advertisement in today's Courier-Mail, as compared with actual Australian Bureau of Statistics figures. Before developing that point, I say that I am certainly not alone in this place in professing a love of sport. I share that spirit with no less a person than the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) himself. I think that all fair-thinking people would agree that the Prime Minister was elected to his leadership position because of a perception in the community of an ability on his part to get this nation working together for the greater good of all. The community saw in him a person who might lead us out of the deep malaise we found ourselves in because of the long term effects of a severe drought and a slow-down in the economy. But what has occurred in recent times? The Prime Minister was always there when the America's Cup was won, when a car race was held at Bathurst or Adelaide, or when other sporting events occurred. But he was also in Melbourne and Sydney two weekends ago and was booed. The Prime Minister of Australia was booed. I want to know why he was booed. Was it his Government's decision to impose a fringe benefits tax, a capital gains tax, an assets test? Was it the decision to mine uranium, reintroduce tertiary fees, or merge Special Broadcasting Service with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation? Was it the Public Service voicing its opinion about his actions in streamlining the Service? I would also like to ask the Prime Minister which group he thinks led the chorus of boos. Was it the New Right? Was it the Australian Council of Trade Unions, was it the Socialist Left. Could it have been the pensioners, the ethnic community, Bob Ansett? I suppose that there were a few small businessmen, farmers and middle-class Australians in the crowd also. Whilst I must profess some surprise at hearing this reaction from the people who thought so highly of the Prime Minister, I predict that there will be even more surprises for him on or after 1 November, the date of the Queensland State election. The Prime Minister's demise as the folk hero of our nation could well be seen as taking place in the period from that last week in September to 1 November. His Party's demise as a force, if it can be called that, in Queensland will be marked as occurring on 1 November 1986. I draw the attention of the Parliament to the Labor Party's advertisement in today's Courier-Mail, which went to print yesterday. Referring to Queensland, it said: What is that record? A record of the highest unemployment in Australia. Mr O'Neil —That is right. Mr McVEIGH —The honourable member does not know what he is talking about. He is a dickhead. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) — Order! The honourable member for Groom will withdraw that remark. Mr McVEIGH —I withdraw it, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Australian Bureau of Statistics bulletin, released at 11.30 this morning, shows that Queensland has not got the highest unemployment. That distinction belongs to South Australia so the Labor Party is issuing dishonest advertisements. We are going to expose its dishonesty and stupidity. I want to talk about some of the great things that the Queensland Government has done and will quote from the most current statistics, those issued at 11.30 today. First, let us look at that very important section of Australia, its youth. Youth unemployment in Queensland, at 18.8 per cent, is the lowest in Australia. What is the position in some of the socialist States? For New South Wales the figure is 21.5 per cent; for Victoria it is 19.5 per cent; and for South Australia it is 26.5 per cent. We do not want to see this dishonest form of advertising occurring. Queensland has the highest rate of youth employment in Australia. We have one of the highest participation rates, our rate closely following that of Victoria. No longer do we have the highest rate of unemployment in the country. That distinction belongs to the socialist State of South Australia. I throw these lies back into the teeth of the Labor Party of Queensland. The Courier-Mail should not accept this dishonest type of advertisement. Labor will not win the Queensland election by being dishonest. That is why it will not even have a cricket team in that State's Parliament after 1 November. In Queensland, unfortunately, 6,500 New Zealanders collect unemployment benefits. We have 9,900 unemployed who have come to Queensland from other States. If we subtract those figures from these most recent statistics we find that the real unemployment figure for Queensland is about 8 per cent. That brings the Queensland rate down to one of the lowest of the States. Only Victoria and the Northern Territory have lower rates. Mr Campbell —It refers to Queensland residents. Mr McVEIGH —The honourable member cannot even add up. He belongs to one of these gangs that put in dishonest advertisements. If we look at the statistics again we find that the Hawke Government is always parroting what it has been able to achieve in job growth. Let us give to the radio listeners of Australia the real statistics. Since the second Hawke Government came to office in December 1984, 31 per cent of all jobs created in Australia have been created in Queensland-80,900, compared with 51,000 in New South Wales and 51,200 in Victoria. I wish to compliment the Premier of Queensland on his recent policy speech. He is worried about jobs. He is honest. He is not worried about piffling away with dishonest advertisements such as the one to which I have referred. Mr Scholes —Saying that he is honest is a bit much. Mr McVEIGH —The lie is thrown in the teeth of the Minister by the Government's own statistics, released at 11.30 this morning. The Premier of Queensland is worried about employment. He knows what the Commonwealth statistics reveal. They do not come from one of his Departments: He has announced that he will make available $340m for capital works programs. That is designed to create jobs for unemployed people and allow employed people to continue in employment. The special program involving the expenditure of $600m for capital works is due to expire in December of this year. Let us relate this whole matter to ordinary working people. We of the National Party are interested in the working people. We just do not pay them lip-service. We want them to have jobs and the injection of $340m will provide an additional 23,000 man years of employment. That will further reduce the unemployment figures that the Bureau referred to in its release this morning. I want to talk about some of the great things that have happened in Queensland and will continue to happen after the Labor Party has been shattered and destroyed on 1 November-a shattering and destruction which will be aided by dishonest advertising. I do not know, Madam Deputy Speaker, how you can belong to a party which yesterday placed in a newspaper an advertisement which was dishonest, as revealed by figures released by your own Government. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) — Order! The honourable member for Groom is out of order in posing such a question to the Chair. Mr McVEIGH —I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let us talk about the economy of Queensland. It has the second highest annual population growth of all the States. Why do people want to come to Queensland? They want to come to Queensland because it has good government. Our population has increased by 1.62 per cent. It has the highest annual retail sales growth in the nation and a growth rate that is higher than the national average. Very importantly, it has an inflation rate that is lower than the national average. It has the highest employment growth of all the States of Australia. I have given the number of jobs that, since the second Hawke Government came to office, have been created in the State of Queensland as a result of positive action on the part of Queenslanders. Equally importantly, Queensland was the only State which, for the month of August, showed an increase in number of persons employed. Employment growth was 0.1 per cent, representing 1,300 jobs. Queensland was the only State in the Commonwealth to be rewarded with a positive employment growth rate. All of the other States lost jobs. Australia needs export income. Queensland is the leading export State in Australia. I conclude by referring to tourism. My view on tourism is shared by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) who came to Queensland and said: `This State has the greatest growth of tourism'. He got up in this House and admitted that that was what he had said. It was the truth. The Queensland tourism industry continues to outperform all other States and enjoys an average growth rate of 8.5 per cent. This Federal Labor Minister came to Queensland and said: `Queensland is a great State for tourism'. He obviously implied that it was well governed, that people could come there secure in the knowledge that the rules were going to be made and were not going to be changed. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has elapsed. Mr GORMAN(Greenway)(1.33) —It is my intention to cover a couple of subjects in this grievance debate, should time allow, Madam Deputy Speaker. The first concerns the six replacement submarines that are to be constructed in Australia by Australians for the defence and protection of Australia. They will, of course, be manned by Australians. The remaining two contractors, who are now assessing the final plans, specifications and location for the construction of the submarines, would, I am sure, have no simple task in selecting a site. As we all know, each State has been most co-operative in its attitude to both of the companies and in offering greenfield sites and so on. It can be stated very clearly that New South Wales-the State of which I am one of the representatives in this House- Mr O'Neil —And a good one! Mr GORMAN —I thank the honourable member. My State has more to offer in all aspects associated with the construction of the submarines, such as a balanced, experienced, qualified work force with a proven track record in industrial relations. That is essential to the final outcome, the overall construction of the submarines. To emphasise the point, the figures for 1986-naturally the most recent available-show that the number of paid man hours lost through industrial issues represented less than 0.76 per cent. If one deducts those concerned with general industrial or national issues, over which the companies or their employees have little or no control, the percentage of lost paid man hours is reduced to around 0.19 per cent. That indicates the union movement's attitude to establishing a harmonious industrial relationship with employers. The bulk of the construction of the new submarines must go to New South Wales as we have the best sites available in Australia. To mention just a couple, we have Cockatoo Dock in Sydney Harbour and the facilities at the Newcastle Dockyards. Both offer the full facilities of sites that would be required for the construction of the submarines. Both sites have all the essential requirements and an abundant qualified labour force. Also, they are close to major suppliers of steel and specialised steel treatment. I refer to the facilities of Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd at Newcastle and Port Kembla and, of course, the Bungi steel treatments works located adjacent to the Port Kembla steel works. I could go on and on about the associated industrial backup that exists in New South Wales. Many of the companies that will supply plant or equipment for the submarines are, luckily enough, established in my own electorate. One of the companies, Radcobellows, is a small company which produces flexible metal bellows and a full range of flexible tubing, a great deal of which will be required in the construction of the submarines. The company employs some 50 local people and has been established in the district for some three years. The construction of the submarines will be a very good opportunity, one that Australian industry has been waiting for. It must be said that a construction program of this magnitude, at today's prices, involves the expenditure of around $2.4 billion. It will give the Australian engineering and manufacturing industry the impetus for which it has been waiting for for many years. One of the major sections of the submarine is referred to as the platform, and the construction of the submarine platforms will represent the first step of the ladder on which Australia's engineering and manufacturing industry will start climbing towards recognition as that of an industrial nation. The project will also set the stage for Australian industry to become a permanent partner in all future defence contracts. It must be stated at this point that the decision to build the six submarines in Australia represented a combined effort by the Minister for Defence, (Mr Beazley), the Caucus Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee, the Defence Department and officers of the Navy such as Rear-Admiral Oscar Hughes and, of course, Captain Graham White. The full support of the Parliament has always been behind the project. I take this opportunity of quoting from a recent copy of the Pacific Defence Reporter: Today, as we are aiming to turn the process around and involve the manufacturers in the engineering of the specifications enabling them to compete for contracts on the basis of information they fully comprehend, which hasn't been the case before. Further, the submarine project offers long-term contracts and long-term employment, in some cases possibly up to 30 years. Already the Defence Department has created a new and good feeling among Australian contractors. Also, the overseas companies have displayed a real enthusiasm for involving Australian industry and hundreds of Australian companies are responding with equal enthusiasm. If we can achieve (the Government goal) a 60 per cent Australian industry involvement in such a specialised and complicated project as submarine construction, we should easily attain 90 per cent participation down the road in related contracts, such as ship and tank construction, say. The submarine project could well be the catalyst to bring about a significant in-country capability which we do not have now. Such a capability is of supreme importance to Australia's security as in 15 years or so it could be a vital part of our defence should we be cut off from world supplies. Let's not be asking ourselves then, `Why didn't we do this 15 years ago?' We're all fired up now. Let's not stuff it up. The new construction submarine project has a problem not only from the point of view of industrial relations, which is most important, but also the point of view of a skilled work force. For expediency and effectiveness, skill formation will need to be developed on an existing infrastructure of skills, which principally only exist now in New South Wales. In order to build on what we have great emphasis will need to be placed on training. I refer to not only on the job training, but also apprenticeship and post-trade training. Management training must not be overlooked. This will require an investment in new or updated courses at principal training centres such as technical and further education colleges. This is a long term investment that should start now. No State government will commit money to training in TAFE colleges without knowing where the submarines will be built. While we procrastinate time is being lost which could be devoted to skilled development. The Government should not delay answering the question as to where it will build, and when making that decision should not confuse it with the old spectre of industrial relations. The success of the project, and long-term technology transfer for the good of the nation, will find its hub in training and skill information. My good friend John Tolley, who is a member of one of my branches, would be very scotty with me if I did not thank him for the help, assistance, and information that he has given me over the years, a great deal of which I have used from time to time at committee meetings. The other item, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I must mention is the recent emergence of the New Right which should be named the Australian Fascist Party. All members of the Opposition benches must be told to stand up and be counted. Are they all to be a part of this new fascist party? If so, which one of them will grow the moustache so that we will at least know which one looks like the little hun that brought such inhumane action against mankind. Mark my words-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr Reith —I rise on a point of order. There are inferences contained in this address which are quite beyond the pale, and I ask the honourable member to withdraw the inferences which he is casting about members on this side of the House. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I would uphold that point of order and ask the honourable member to refrain from making such offensive imputations. Mr GORMAN —If there is any offensive inference in what I have said I will withdraw it, Madam Deputy Speaker, but what was objected to was not stated. I said that honourable members opposite should indicate which of them would represent the little hun that brought such inhumane actions against mankind. Mark my words, Australian workers will not tolerate fascist treatment, so honourable members opposite should take heed. I thank the House for the time it has allotted to me. Mr REITH(Flinders)(1.43) —Madam Deputy Speaker, the grievance I bring to the House today is not in fact the flavour of the month, such as the fringe benefits tax; it is one about which I have had as yet very few complaints, unlike some of the Labor Party's other policies and so, in a sense, it is more of a potential grievance, but it is a grievance that will affect many of the people listening today, and as sure as night follows day, we will all be hearing a lot more about it. I refer, of course, to Labor's capital gains tax. That is the tax that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in 1983 said we would never have. It has not had a lot of publicity because if you owned something before September 1985, it is exempt from the capital gains tax. The Government has put out the story that the family home, whenever purchased, is also exempt. The Taxation Office is already under siege because of the fringe benefits tax. There is no doubt that its staff are pulling their hair out on that one but have naturally been happy to keep the lid on it; and of course they have got an eye on this imputation tax, with which the Government has been struggling and which is to be foisted on us, apparently, very shortly. In the little booklet obtainable from the post offices the Taxation Office says: `In broad terms, the following capital gains are exempt from the tax: Profits you receive if you sell your home'. That is the broadest definition of broad terms I have ever heard. I must say that I would have preferred, and I think it would have been more accurate, that the Tax Office had put out a pamphlet which said to Australian home owners: `When you are buying your next home beware of Labor's capital gains tax'. The other ploy to keep the lid on the capital gains tax is to tell everybody that it will bring in only $25m; that is the official figure. Honourable members would have to say that it does not sound much and in this year's Budget the obvious inference to be drawn is that it will bring in so little that the experts cannot even calculate such a negligible figure. If those people who are listening are lulled into a sense of false security, let me give them a warning about the application of Labor's new capital gains tax, because the reality is that many home owners will find themselves subject to it. I am not talking about just a few isolated cases. I am talking about literally hundreds of thousands of ordinary Australian homeowners having to pay capital gains tax on the family home. Obviously, if the tax is going to be as bad as I am putting to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the tax to be collected by the Government will have to be a lot more than $25m, which is the official estimate. I have another figure, and I must say it is from the best and most authoritative source currently in the land; and that is a problem which comes from the Federal Treasurer (Mr Keating), the honourable member for Blaxland. What he says publicly is one thing-that is the $25m-but what he says privately to his colleagues is another. In July 1986, before the ALP's National Conference in Hobart, he wrote to his colleagues boasting about Labor's 25 anti-business tax measures which would bring in $3 billion. In that list there was a figure for the capital gains tax. It was not $25m, it was six times that amount; it was $300m. That will please only those politicians of envy in the Labor Party and particularly the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), who last year was pressing for a capital gains tax that would bring in $1.5 billion. I have given the warning. Let me now give just some of the at least 15 examples where the family home will be subject to capital gains tax. Take, for example, an elderly person who goes into hospital for a hip replacement and, because of that operation, is required to be in hospital for an extended stay. It is true that as to the capital gains tax, if you leave your permanent place of residence for period-in other words, a `temporary absence', to use the language of the Act-you will have an exemption. But-and here comes the rub and red tape-you will get that exemption for the period of absence if, in the words of the law, and I quote: The taxpayer notifies the Commissioner in writing not later than the date of lodgement of the taxpayer's return of income for the year of income in which the dwelling again became the sole or principal residence of the taxpayer, that the taxpayer elects that this sub-section is to apply in relation to the dwelling. Mr Campbell —That is arrant nonsense and you know it. Mr REITH —That is in the Act and I would invite the honourable member to read it, because some of his constituents will be faced with Labor's capital gains tax. I would bet that in a population of 16 million, hardly anybody will know that fact, let alone understand it. The Prime Minister has not got a clue, you would have to agree, on the fringe benefits tax, and you can be sure he has not-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! I call the honourable member to order and point out that he is not to cast personal reflections upon the Prime Minister. Mr REITH —The Prime Minister has appeared, Madam Deputy Speaker, in the last few days to have had personal difficulties with the interpretation of the taxation Acts and the point I make is that I believe the same difficulties will fall upon the Prime Minister in regard to the interpretation of the capital gains tax. It is terrible that elderly people are required to understand taxes which this Government itself does not understand. How many elderly pensioners lodge tax returns, anyway? Why should the elderly in our community who have fought for their country, risked their lives and paid taxes all their lives, have to fill in forms just to protect themselves from Labor's capital gains tax? The fact is that thousands of pensioners are going to be caught up in the red tape and the entanglement of Labor's capital gains tax. That is only one example. Let me give another. Let us take the case of a young couple who are buying their first home and, as many young couples do, first buy a vacant block with a plan to construct a house on it; part of the Australian dream. Under the taxation legislation, if you buy a vacant block after 19 September 1985, build a house on it and that becomes your family home, you will not be up for Labor's capital gains tax. You will say that is fine and that is what you have been told; that is what you expected. But there are two catches, Madam Deputy Speaker. Firstly, if it takes you longer than four years to get into the house from the date that you bought the block, for the period in excess of four years you will be up for capital gains tax. I think a lot of people will be paying a Labor capital gains tax just on that catch alone. If that does not sound too bad to you-and I certainly would have to say that I do not understand why four years is such a magical figure-the second catch is considerably worse; because to claim the exemption the house has to become as soon as practicable-whatever that means, and perhaps you cannot take a holiday before you move in, but leaving that aside-after the dwelling was erected and continues to be the sole or principal residence of the taxpayer for those purposes for not less than 12 months. In other words, when you have built your family home and you move into it, you will get the exemption; but on the basis that you live in that house for 12 months. What if you work for a bank? What if you work in the Defence Force for your country and the employer says to you, `You have got to move to Perth', or `You have got to move interstate' and for that reason, which is beyond your control, you have got to leave your house that you have just built within 12 months? The ramification of that under Labor's capital gains tax is that that young couple will pay a tax on the family home. Mr Cunningham —That is rubbish and you know it. Mr REITH —There is no rubbish about it. The honourable member ought to read it because people in his electorate will not be voting for him when they find out that his Government's tax has introduced a liability for capital gains tax on the family home. Quite frankly, Madam Deputy Speaker, this Government gives with one hand and talks about supporting young people moving into family homes, but on the other hand it has its hands in the pockets of ordinary Australian taxpayers and home owners and is ripping into them with capital gains tax. In my electorate there are many other examples. I will give just one: If you buy a property in excess of two hectares-in other words, if you buy a 10-acre block-the excess over two hectares will be subject to capital gains tax. Is that a fair thing in a country which cherishes home ownership? I can tell honourable members it is not in my electorate, where people like to get out into the country and have a 10-acre block and I do not see why they should pay the penalty of a capital gains tax. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(1.53) —I want to raise as a grievance what I consider to be a most important problem facing Australia. But before I do I want to touch on some of the things that have been alluded to by members of the Opposition. The hyperbole that comes from that side continues to amaze me. The honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh) talked about the growth in Queensland. He then said; `The growth in Queensland since the advent of the Hawke Government has been very substantial'. Of course it has. The Hawke Government planned it that way, because things were depressed in Queensland and we put a special emphasis in there. He then spoke of tourism in Queensland. It is true that Queensland, particularly along the coast, is very spectacular; it is a beautiful State. This is hardly thanks to Joh. The country was always beautiful; it is obviously close to a very large tourist pool and it is bound to be the State with the greatest tourist attraction. It also has very good weather, hardly something which Joh can take credit for. Then the honourable member talked about dishonest advertising. For years and years we have seen the rorts pulled by the Liberal and National parties at election time. Everyone will remember the fistful of dollars they promised in advertising campaigns. I was talking to a sports journalist this morning about an obscure code of football apparently played in some parts of Australia-rugby. He was saying that Wally Lewis, the captain of the Kangaroos currently touring the world to represent Australia, was recently used by the National Party in an advertisement, without his consent, without his consultation. The journalist told me that Wally Lewis is outraged at this dishonesty and deception and he has sought to have the advertisement withdrawn; he has totally repudiated it. The journalist to whom I spoke was very hot under the collar about this and he assured me that Wally Lewis is absolutely outraged. What could be more deceitful? What could be more dishonest or disreputable than simply to take a person's name while he is out of this country, serving his country, trying to raise the status of this country, and to use him in this very tawdry fashion? These people come in here and talk about dishonest advertising. Madam Deputy Speaker, other things were alluded to, including a reference to capital gains tax by the very forgettable honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith). Capital gains tax in Australia is a very equitable tax. It is a tax payable only on the real profit. Any capital gain has excluded from it inflationary gains, so it is a tax applied only to the real profit. It is interesting to note that since the advent of the capital gains tax, the stock market in this country has boomed. Obviously the people out there are investing now. We have had to get people away from this syndrome of the land dealers and wheeler-dealers, the people with their shonky land deals and blocks of flats. We have to get people out there investing in Australian industry and investing in Australian intellectual drive. The capital gains tax serves a very useful purpose, but it should not be seen in isolation. It was this Government that gave to industry, after 40 years of pleading from industry, imputation. This means that the dividends from shares will now not be taxed in the hands of the shareholder. Industry and commerce had been asking for it for 40 years, but it was never acceded to by the Liberal Government. It was given by this Government. Further, this Government allowed companies to write off losses incurred in one company against the profits of another wholly-owned company, something else that industry has been seeking for many years. This Government gave those incentives to industry. This has enabled mining and exploration to go ahead in leaps and bounds. It was the initiative of this Government and these packages must not be seen in isolation. It is quite dishonest for these people to come into the House and make unjustified claims. Claims made by the forgettable honourable member for Flinders about the impact of the capital gains tax are so much hyperbole and nonsense and he knows it. The shameful thing is that he knows that he is not telling the truth. I want to return to the real problem facing Australia and it is not the very poor performance and the fearmongering of the Liberal Party, particularly of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). The real problem facing this nation is the growing dichotomy between city and country. There was a time when Australia was a united country. The history of Australia is that everyone has always lived in the cities, but there was a time when people in the country had a very good association with people in the city and everyone in the city knew someone from the bush. That has gone, very largely as a result of 40 years of the policies of the Liberal Party, particularly because of the Menzies myth; and it has gone also because of the other myth, institutionalised by both political parties, the myth of multiculturalism. Madam Deputy Speaker, this is not a multicultural country; this is the most Anglo-Celtic country in the world. While we have-I applaud it-a measure of the cosmopolitan about our cities, the fact remains that this is overwhelmingly an Anglo-Celtic country. The Anglo-Celtic culture is a most generous and encompassing culture. I get rather concerned when I think about the impending takeover of the Special Broadcasting Service by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. One of the reasons for this, is that both political parties-and, of course, it was institutionalised by honourable members opposite-believe in the myth of an ethnic vote. This is the most degrading thing I have come across. There are people in the Parliament, in the system, who believe that one has to get on-side only a few chosen ethnics and all the rest would follow like sheep. This is very degrading to ethnics and I certainly reject it. I can tell honourable members that it is rejected by the large number of ethnics that I have in my electorate. One of the things that we have to face in this country is the effects of immigration. We have an immigration policy today that this Government inherited. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with Standing Order 106, as amended for this session, the debate is interrupted and I put the question: That grievances be noted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr FIFE —I refer the Prime Minister to his emphatic comment on the Carleton-Walsh Report last night that no concessions would be made on school fees in the review of the fringe benefits tax. Does this mean that free or discounted school fees for the child of a member of the clergy who teaches and lives at a church school will be subject to fringe benefits tax and that the religious institution will be forced to pay that tax? Is this an intended or unintended consequence of the fringe benefits tax? Mr HAWKE —Dear, oh, dear! Mr Reith —Enjoy yourself and answer the question. Mr HAWKE —I am enjoying this very much. The discomfiture of Opposition members is something beautiful to behold. I have nothing to add to the answers that I have given already. I have indicated that there will be a review of the sort that I have talked about. If anyone wishes to bring forward anything through the consultative process in which we will engage, he will be able to do so. Mrs KELLY —Is the Prime Minister aware of recent reforms to the United States tax system? Does the Prime Minister consider that the US reforms could provide a model for future changes in the taxation system is Australia? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for Canberra for her question. By way of preface I shall make some observations on the American tax reforms-- Mr Tim Fischer —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Canberra asked `Does the Prime Minister consider'-I quote her exact words. That is clearly asking for an opinion from the Prime Minister in relation to a matter which is not directly within his jurisdiction. Madam SPEAKER —I think that the honourable member for Canberra is asking for the matter to be transposed as part of the responsibility of the Prime Minister's portfolio. Mr HAWKE —I preface my observations about the American tax reform proposals by saying that the sweeping reform of the Australian taxation system which has been brought in by my Government will produce, as is increasingly recognised, a fairer and more efficient tax system. It is one that will mean that for the first time the friends of the Opposition, the wealthy tax dodgers, will have to pay their full and fair share of tax, which they have been able to avoid under the processes and practices allowed by our predecessors. The top marginal tax rate will be reduced from the 60c bequeathed to the Australian people by Treasurer Howard to 49c. There was all the talk in the world about using the tax system to create incentives. Opposition members were full of rhetoric but decidedly short on achievement. The tax reform will be achieved in two cuts, one in December and one in July next year. The cuts will give the average worker relief of about $12 a week. We have taken the initiative to introduce a sweeping and effective tax reform and there is no need for this Australian Government to look to the American reform as a model for Australia. It is interesting to observe that the Leader of the Opposition, a paragon of virtue when it comes to tax reform, said on 29 September: I'm very attracted to what Reagan has done. What Reagan is doing is being examined very closely as part of developing our own tax policy. The Opposition's tax policy is like Halley's Comet-it is necessary to wait a hell of a long time before seeing it. The Leader of the Opposition is very attracted to the American tax reform, which has been designed by the American Administration for circumstances which it regards as appropriate to that country. I shall not comment on whether what it has done is or is not appropriate in the circumstances of that nation. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition says that he finds the American model attractive for Australia, and I suggest that we consider a few of the features of the reported American tax system that the Leader of the Opposition says he finds so appealing. One of the features of the American tax reform is a rise in tax payments by American companies of the order of 25 per cent. There is to be a 25 per cent increase in the tax burden on American companies. This will be brought about, basically, by a massive crackdown on business perks and the elimination of many other business deductions. So the Leader of the Opposition finds attractive a 25 per cent increase in the tax burden on companies that is to be brought about by wiping out so many of their perks. In addition to the Federal income tax impost in the United States, there is a system of social security contributions as well as State and local income taxes. Let us consider capital gains tax, which the Leader of the Opposition finds very attractive. The United States tax reform includes a capital gains tax on nominal gains at the relevant marginal tax rate. In other words, the system that the Leader of the Opposition puts on a pedestal has within it a 25 per cent increase in the tax that is paid by companies and a retrospective capital gains tax on the full nominal gain, compared with the fair and efficient capital gains tax that we have. As on every tax issue, the Leader of the Opposition will not come clean on what his position is. That is true of capital gains tax. On 29 August 1984 he said: I think I was asked at the last National Press Club luncheon the same question by Max Walsh and I said then that there are arguments within a total restructuring of the system for what you have said. In other words, the honourable member was saying in 1984 that there are arguments for a capital gains tax. When he became Leader of the Opposition, however, he retracted and said: `No, no capital gains tax'. The honourable gentleman has now done another twist and turn and he supports the American system, which has a severe and retrospective capital gains tax element. The Opposition simply does not know what it is saying. On the one hand, it is saying that there should be no capital gains tax. On the other, it is saying that it will have such a system. The only honest statement on tax which has come from the Opposition in recent times is the statement made by the Deputy Leader of the National Party, when he said frankly that school fees, cheap loans and Mercedes-Benz company cars are obviously perks which should be taxed. That is the only honest statement on tax that has come from the Opposition, and the Deputy Leader of the National Party, for his pains in being honest-something that is now a crime in the Opposition-has been gagged by the opportunistic Leader of the Opposition. Mr WHITE —Is the Acting Treasurer aware that many small businesses in the tourism industry are forced to become incorporated in order to obtain operating finance? Is he aware also that the shareholders and directors of such small companies often comprise a husband and wife who actually live on the tourist premises-for example, a motel? Is the Minister further aware that the Australian Taxation Office has advised that these people-for example, those who live in a motel-will have to pay fringe benefits tax on their own home and meals? Is this an intended or unintended consequence of the fringe benefits tax? Mr HURFORD —I am aware that much of what the honourable member has put in his question is a fact. I am also aware that the Government, in bringing down this eminiently fair fringe benefits tax, is not only following principle in the design of the tax but also it manifestly going to be following fairness in the way that tax is administered. That is why, as the Prime Minister has announced and as I have alluded to on previous occasions, we are reviewing the imposition, in the light of all the information that has come to light in the past couple of months, at least since 1 July last. The facts as they have been outlined to the House by the honourable member will be put before the review committee, and if there are unintended consequences, they will be addressed. Mr KEOGH —I address my question to the Special Minister of State. I preface it by saying that I hope that he will not take it lightheartedly and simply answer `So what?'. Can the Minister advise honourable members whether the use of a person's photograph in an election advertisement, without that person's permission, would be permitted under the Commonwealth Electoral Act, for which the Minister is responsible? Mr Hawke —It's his birthday. Mr KEOGH —The Prime Minister has drawn to my attention the fact that I did not do that which was essential when I rose to my feet at first and wish the Minister, on behalf of all honourable members, a very happy birthday. Mr YOUNG —I have some good news for the Opposition. I shall do only a further six terms as Opposition business manager-as Government business manager. Honourable members-Ha, ha! Mr YOUNG —If honourable members ask the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations why I got it mixed up, they will be able to explain. They should take no pride in what they did to me last night. Mr Hunt —We will have you as a penmate, Mick. Mr YOUNG —I shall listen to that Coonabarabran radio station all the time. The interviews that the honourable member does up there are pretty good. One interview a week will do for a while. In answer to the honourable member for Bowman, the advice that I have received is that no provision in the Commonwealth Electoral Act would inhibit such advertising. However, it would seem that there are civil remedies available to people whose name or photograph is used either against their wishes or without their permission. I understand-this may be of some interest to the Queensland Premier-that there could be appropriate instances for defamation. If Wally Lewis wants a bit of good defamation, there might be 400,000 bucks up there on which he can get his hands. I understand, from the interview given by Mrs Lewis this morning, that Mr and Mrs Lewis have made clear the views they hold about the use by the National Party of the captain of the Australian rugby league team in the National Party advertisements. In answer to questions put to her in an interview this morning, Mrs Lewis said: Wally is away overseas. He can't defend himself, so they shouldn't have used it. Our views on the whole matter-we just don't want it used. She was asked: Are you angry about this? She replied: Yes, we really are. The journalist continued: Wally has been known to say favourable things about the Labor Party previously, hasn't he? Mrs Lewis replied: Yes, that's probably due to me. I'm a very Labor woman, but that's beside the point. We just don't want him involved in any political fights at the moment. They can use someone else. Mr Lewis's father-in-law used more colourful language. He said that he would rather pull the heads off his racing pigeons than do anything favourable for the National Party. As I pointed out yesterday, as to events in Queensland, such as the purchase of a property by the Queensland Premier whereby, all of a sudden, there was a new school, a new police station, a new bitumen road, a new dam and a new bridge-so what? Four hundred thousand dollars-so what? I can tell honourable members something else that the National Party has on the Labor Party. If one goes to one of Joh's dinners one has to pay 25,000 bucks. There is a bit of goodwill in that. As the Leader of the Liberal Party and the Leader of the Labor Party have said, after the elections there will be a decent electoral system brought into Queensland. I believe that Queensland should bring in some of the laws that we have instituted-such as a register of political donations, so that we can see what is going on in Queensland. There is no doubt that the result of that $400,000 defamation case between the Bond Corporation and Joh Bjelke-Petersen throws light on the way in which business is done in Queensland. If it is done in this case, it must be done in many other cases. People who are paying $25,000 to go to those dinners in Queensland must also be buying a bit of goodwill for their businesses in Queensland. It is about time that this was exposed. It is great that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal has reopened its hearings. We shall hear a lot more about what has been going on in Queensland, the way things have been done, and the way companies have been helped. There is absolutely no doubt in the mind of anyone connected with the law that that $400,000 is absolutely phoney in terms of what was said on the television station and what the Queensland Premier could have expected to get out of that case. Mr Nehl —Go and say it outside. Mr YOUNG —I will say it outside when I am defeated for Port Adelaide, and that will be a long time. We will hear a lot more about this. It is pleasing that the Federal Parliament will be sitting right up until the date of the Queensland elections, because we should have a little discussion on this every day. Mr BRAITHWAITE —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Mr Simmons —So what? Mr BRAITHWAITE —With a bit of luck we might get an answer. I refer the Prime Minister to his comments last night on the Willesee program that `there's the few who rorted the system'. If that statement is correct, why did the Prime Minister introduce legislation that taxes religions, charities, the disabled, sporting clubs, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the National Trust, governments, local councils, struggling farmers, small businesses and many other individuals and groups that clearly were not rorting the system? Mr HAWKE —I think that the best way I can answer the honourable member is to indicate, again, the breadth of support that there is for the tax, and outline the necessary implication. Opposition members-Ha, ha! Mr HAWKE —Hollow laughter is no substitute for a principled policy. That is all Opposition members can do. In an answer I gave yesterday, I referred to the broad body of support contained in the submission that was presented to me by Premier Burke. I remind the House of the organisations-the Primary Industry Association of WA (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). They all said that the taxation of fringe benefits was a necessary part of any rational personal income taxation system. That is why the Australian Financial Review, in its editorial of 12 August, said: The fringe benefit tax is a method of reducing tax evasion, as part of a broad tax reform aimed at producing more equity and fewer rorts, and improving incentive for effort by getting the top marginal income tax rate down below 50 per cent. It observed: The Liberal Party, in promising to remove this and other taxes, is falling into such hypocrisy. The position of members of the Opposition is one of total hypocrisy. Their leader says the tax is wrong. It will be removed not only in part but lock, stock and barrel. The tax is wrong in principle. Members opposite can luxuriate for the time being in that position. They will pay a very heavy penalty for it. Mr GORMAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in his capacity as Acting Treasurer. In deciding to apply a fringe benefits tax, what are some of the considerations the Government took into account? Mr HURFORD —I am very grateful to the honourable member for giving me this opportunity. There were three options before the Government: One was what I will call the haemorrhaging option. That option has now been adopted most recently by the Leader of the Opposition and, it would seem, by the Leader of the National Party of Australia. In fact, they have had so many positions that it reminds me of the Karma Sutra. But the most recent position they have had is the haemorrhaging position where tax to the extent of $700m is being haemorrhaged to revenue. The Government decided that that could not continue because it would be an unprincipled position. There were two further options before the Government. The second could be called the Opposition's secret fringe benefits tax option and then there is the one which the Government has adopted. The secret fringe benefits tax option has been betrayed by certain front bench members when they talked about section 26 (e). The secret system is one where the employers would have to report on the benefits in kind that are given to employees; they would have to disclose at the end of the financial year the value of the benefits given; they would have to report each pay day on the amount of benefit for each member of their staff; and they would have to then put up with the fact that many of their staff members could not afford the tax when it was converted from kind into cash. In short, the secret option gives employers much more paperwork than under the alternative, but gives the employees the obligation to pay this tax. There would be much more work for employers and much more work for the administration, resulting in hundreds, indeed thousands, more tax officers. The third option, which was the one adopted by the Government, namely, the fringe benefit tax route, is clearly, unassailably, the most principled and the best administrative way to go. Opposition members-Ha, ha! Mr HURFORD —The hollow laughs opposite betray the fact that there is a difficult settling in period. There is always a difficult settling in period for any new tax. I remind the House of the similar hollow laughs we had three years ago when we were bedding down the prescribed payments system. Mr Hawke —In the building industry. Mr HURFORD —In the building industry, yes. Who hears of it today? It is recognised as a fair system. We are addressing the teething problems in this bedding down period. We have already made reference in Question Time to the review that is taking place. That review will be completed by 28 October, but I draw the House's attention to the fact that as things presently stand employers attracting the fringe benefits tax liability must lodge their first instalment declaration and tax payment with the Taxation Office by 28 October. The Commissioner of Taxation has already advised tax agents that no penalties will attach to payments received from tax agents before 28 November where half of the tax agents returns are provided by 28 October. Honourable members will understand that most people who are obliged to pay fringe benefits tax are employers and businesses and they will have tax agents. That is a very important qualification to note. There is already an extension of one month provided in a large number of cases which go through tax agents. In addition, in view of the Government's review of the fringe benefits tax, I inform the House that the Commissioner of Taxation has decided to grant a blanket extension for all fringe benefits taxpayers of two weeks, including an additional two weeks for tax agents, with a further extension in the case of demonstrated difficulty. The Commission of Taxation will shortly issue a Press release confirming the details of this extension. As I have said, the fringe benefits tax is a principled one and a good one in design. In imposing it administratively we will make sure that equity and fairness will prevail both in the design and in the imposition of the tax. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Prime Minister to the review of the application and administration of the fringe benefits tax. I ask the honourable gentleman: Who will take charge of this review? What organisations will be asked to make submissions? How does one get to be a participant in the review? Will the report on the review be made public? When will an announcement be made? Will and changes be retrospective or operate from the date of change? Finally, will the review include changes in the area relating to motor vehicles as urged this morning by the South Australian Premier, Mr Bannon? Mr HAWKE —The Treasurer will have the primary responsibilities- Opposition members-Ha, ha! Mr HAWKE —This mob will laugh at anything. The Treasurer will have the responsibilities for the undertaking of this review, as it will be the Treasurer who presents the submission to the Cabinet. The details of the consultative process are being finalised. I have had discussions with the Treasurer by telephone and the process will be finalised in discussions between the Treasurer and me on his return on Monday of next week. Mr HOLLIS —Can the Minister for Health inform the House as to the street level reach of the national campaign against drug abuse in New South Wales? Dr BLEWETT —I thank the honourable member for his question, particularly as it gives me an opportunity to comment on the latest inanities of the coalition drugs task force which claims that the street reach of the drug campaign in New South Wales is inadequate. I must say in the not easy task of trying to co-ordinate the national strategy against drug abuse in this country that the activities of the coalition drug task force has added an element of light relief. Its first survey was ridiculed on the back pages of the newspapers. I am certain that this second survey will be treated in the same way. The coalition drug task force is now claiming that of 71 organisations surveyed in New South Wales only six had benefited financially from the Government's drug campaign in 1985-86. Of those 71 organisations named, I am informed by the Government of New South Wales, which is responsible for the direct imbursement, not six, but 55 of those 71 gained additional moneys in 1985-86. Indeed, for those 55 organisations, the joint extra funding was $2,740,000. Let met give some examples of what is contained in the survey. For Hunter Life Education, the survey says there is nothing new; the fact is that there is $75,000 which is new. For We Help Ourselves, the survey says nothing new; the fact is that there is $104,000 which is new. For Westmount Co-op, Katoomba, the survey said nothing new; the fact is that there is $87,000 which is new. For the Wayack Committee, the survey says nothing new; the fact is that there is $28,000 which is new. For the Buttery Bangalow, the survey says nothing new, but there is $39,000 which is new. For DC24 Drug Centre, Ringwood, according to the survey there is nothing new; but the fact is that there is $51,000 which is new. For Group Recovery Organisation of the World Australia, the survey says nothing new; but there is $33,000 in fact. For the Dubbo Drug and Alcohol Committee, there is nothing new according to the survey; in fact there is $22,000 which is new. The list goes on and on and the facts simply refute the claims made in the survey. Additionally, another 33 community and government agencies not mentioned in the coalition's survey, and not surveyed, got an extra $510,000 new money under the cost shared program. I am ready to concede that although most of these inaccuracies are the result of the shabby survey techniques of this coalition drug task force, it may be that in some case that, as the State Government is responsible for the direct payment of those moneys, these amounts may not always have been recognised as new moneys. We are writing to ensure that the State Government has these moneys properly identified, but there is no doubt that it is the shabbiness of the survey that explains most of those inaccuracies. To the Leader of the Opposition, whom I believe in these matters is a responsible person, I say: This Government will welcome constructive comment on the work of this campaign. But this destructive, unprincipled, inaccurate type of comment does the Opposition no good-let that be made clear-nor, of course, does it do any good for the campaign throughout this country. In fact, it is an insult to the thousands of people working throughout this country at the street level to make this campaign a success. The most useful thing that the Leader of the Opposition could do to contribute to the success of the drug campaign in this country is to wind up his useless coalition task force. Mr CARLTON —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I remind him that it took a full eight months following the Treasurer's statement in September last year for the Government to produce the 139-page Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Bill, with its 176-page explanatory memorandum, and that over the last five months the Commissioner of Taxation has issued 115 pages of rules on the tax. How, then, is it going to be possible to conduct a complete review of the tax, decide the necessary changes, prepare legislation and draw up the machinery for implementation in time for the Prime Minister's promised announcement to occur in less than three weeks time? Mr HAWKE —As distinct from the Opposition, this Government is fair dinkum about the matter of tax reform. We have not been waiting for my announcement for this work to be done. As I have indicated, the Treasurer had already said in August that some amendments would be introduced. There has been an on-going monitoring of the situation as I have said so many times now that I would have thought that it would have at least penetrated the thickness of the minds of the Opposition. The work has been going on for a considerable time and we believe, with the application of the resources of government and the co-operation of those whom we will be consulting, that the timetable I have indicated will be able to be met. Mr TICKNER —I ask whether the Minister for Health is aware of media and medical reports concerning the carcinogenic properties of smokeless tobacco and the fact that this very dangerous product is being increasingly imported into Australia and promoted among young kids. What action does the Government propose to take in respect of this public health issue? Dr BLEWETT —I take the opportunity to point out that the honourable member for Hughes is one of the most active defenders of consumers' interests in this House and has certainly been persistent in expressing his concerns about this issue. I think it can be said that there is now a general concern in the community about the effects of both smokeless tobacco and oral snuff. The medical evidence identifying the relationship between the incidence of oral cancer and oral snuff and smokeless tobacco is now overwhelming. In June 1986, a National Health and Medical Research Council committee recommended that smokeless tobacco be added to the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations. Unfortunately, at that time it did not deal with snuff and I have asked that it give immediate consideration to snuff as well. A reworked proposal for banning the import of both smokeless tobacco and snuff will be put before the NHMRC at its next meeting. In addition, the concerns of the States have also been reflected, in that at the Australian Health Ministers' Advisory Council meeting last week there was support across the board for the banning of smokeless tobacco products nationally and for the prohibition of imports. This recommendation will be on the agenda of the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy when it meets at the beginning of November. I have already informed Senator Button that I will act on the NHMRC recommendation as soon as it reaches me in its final form and will request that smokeless tobacco products be banned under the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations. I also understand that the promotion of oral snuff is occurring in Australia on a low scale. It is packed in a very innocuous fashion and I will be recommending national action both to my State colleagues and to my Federal ministerial colleagues on that matter. Mr CONNOLLY —I ask whether the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment wrote to the Northern Territory Minister for Mines and Energy on 16 September concerning the future status of Kakadu stage 2, saying: Should the Commonwealth decide to pursue World Heritage listing of the former Stage 2 area `the Northern Territory Government' will be consulted in accordance with the CONCOM agreement prior to any approach being made to the World Heritage secretariat in Paris. In view of this very clear commitment, why did the Minister issue, on the same day, a joint Press statement with the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, which stated that immediate steps should be taken to nominate stage 2 of the park for inclusion on the World Heritage list? Will the Minister confirm that no further consultations took place with the Northern Territory Government before the submission was sent to Paris, I understand, on the following day, 17 September? If so, why did he deliberately lie to the Northern Territory Government? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will withdraw that remark. Mr CONNOLLY —Madam Speaker, I have his letter here, and what he said in the letter and what he has done are opposites. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will withdraw. Mr CONNOLLY —I will withdraw and replace that word with the words `grossly mislead'. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will withdraw that also. Mr CONNOLLY —With due respect, Madam Speaker, `mislead' is an acceptable parliamentary term. Madam SPEAKER —The word `mislead' is acceptable; the word `grossly' we will leave out. Mr COHEN —To fully understand the implications of the honourable member's question, one needs to go back to the original nomination of Kakadu for World Heritage listing, when it was made clear to the World Heritage Committee that this was just the first part of the process and that it was intended by the previous Government that Kakadu stage 2 would eventually become part of the park and would be an addition to the World Heritage listing, as will, eventually, Kakadu stage 3. It is quite different from other newer, fresher nominations which may occur, such as the one we are now considering, that is, Uluru National Park, which I discussed with Mr Hatton in my recent visit to the Northern Territory and which, incidentally, he strongly supported. However, in this particular case it was intended to be merely an addition to the existing park. Mr LEO McLEAY —My question is also directed to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to comments made by the Premier of Victoria alleging bias to New South Wales in appointments to Australia Council boards and the distribution of grants to writers resident in New South Wales? Are Mr Cain's remarks in relation to the Minister's portfolio accurate? Mr COHEN —I thank the honourable member for asking this question 24 hours too early. I must say that some creative work in the arts has been done by the Premier; who can, if he wishes, have the right of reply. According to the Premier, one would have to be stupid or cupid to believe that Sydney writers do not enjoy an unfair advantage over Melbourne writers. I am quoting from a Fairfax Press editorial, if the Prime Minister does not mind. Mr Hawke —That is all right. Mr COHEN —The Premier is concerned that four of the seven members of the Literature Board come from New South Wales. He said: It irks me all the more because last year that Board awarded 50 grants to New South Wales writers and 18 to Victoria. The excellent editorial states: There are statistics, and there are Mr Cain's statistics. Some of the ``NSW'' grants, for instance, are for writers who used to live in Melbourne. What is happening is that very talented writers from Melbourne now gravitate to Sydney. They are now leaving St Petersburg and coming to Tinsel Town. I give some examples: David Williamson, who has a holiday home in my electorate, and Barry Oakley. Of course, more recently, the very talented Phillip Adams has come to Sydney. There is not a great deal that we can do about this. Unfortunately, artists tend to congregate in the areas of artistic activity. Like it or not, that is now occurring in Sydney. We cannot provide grants on a per capita basis; the money has to go where the talent is. To take that logic a step further, what would happen if all artistic grants were allocated on a per capita basis? We would have to provide every single town in Australia with a grant based on its population. The situation now is that people gravitate to certain areas. The grants are based on artistic merit, not on where those artists are located. I am sorry that the Premier cannot have the opportunity to reply, but I am sure that I will hear from him later. Mr SHARP —Will the Attorney-General confirm that a Queen's Counsel, Mr Chester Porter, was sought by the Director of Public Prosecutions to give an independent legal opinion on whether a Mr Taillon should have been charged with the illegal importation of narcotics? Does the Attorney-General recall that Mr Taillon was allowed to go free, having been caught in Australia with some $300,000 worth of narcotics in his possession, when a loophole was discovered in our laws? Does the Attorney-General remember that nearly a year ago he promised an urgent review of this glaring anomaly-and since then nothing has happened? Finally, will the Attorney-General clear up this matter by giving the House details of what is contained in the legal opinion and informing us when legislation to close this loophole will be brought into the House? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The information given by the honourable member is not correct in the sense that the question of Mr Taillon not being prosecuted was a decision made by the Director of Public Prosecutions because he took the view that the issue of possession and importation did not apply in that case. It was alleged that there was some drug in the baggage allegedly belonging to Mr Taillon but not in his possession. Because of the public interest following the Director's decision, I obtained an opinion from Mr Chester Porter. I had already indicated in answer to a question in the House that I would have the matter investigated from the point of view of the potency of the law in respect of both importation and possession. I am pleased to say that in that opinion Mr Chester Porter said that the prosecution could have gone ahead on the basis that it related to importation but that perhaps there was some doubt on the issue of possession. That was the sort of variation in evidence. Because the importation aspect is not a matter within my portfolio but one for the Australian Customs Service, that opinion and advice has been forwarded to my ministerial colleague the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button. I understand that arrangements are now in place to amend the Act to ensure that, whether a case relates to importation and/or possession, prosecutions can be launched. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —For the information of honourable members, I present resolutions of the sixteenth meeting of the Australian Fisheries Council held in Adelaide on 30 July 1986. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —For the information of honourable members, I present resolutions of the 124th meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council held in Adelaide on 30 July 1986. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —Pursuant to sub-section 25b (4) of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942, I present the fourth report, central region, of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal on remote commercial television services. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister may proceed. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —On 19 August, in answering a question, I said that Mr Justice Murphy has made it clear to me that he had had discussions with his fellow judges and there was never any suggestion that he should not sit with them. I also said that that statement was of some surprise to me in view of other information given to me at that time. In this morning's Canberra Times, there is an article by Mr Jack Waterford headed `Attorneys-General calling senior judges liars'. The article states: For the second time in months an Attorney-General has publicly called the most senior judge in his jurisdiction a liar. That obviously suggests that I had said that of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia. No such statement was ever made by me, nor could it ever be imputed to me. The article further states: The Gibbs-Bowen affair has already been well chronicled . . . As far as I am aware, it has not been chronicled anywhere. The only matters that the Press has been able to report have been some Press statements issued by either Mr Justice Murphy or the Chief Justice, I want to make it clear that at no stage was there any suggestion that I called the Chief Justice a liar. Such a statement is false and malicious and could cause damage to the Court, to the Chief Justice and to me. We all hold the High Court in the highest esteem. The matters that may have transpired between the judges are something that they alone know about; they are not matters for comment by me. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr CONNOLLY —Yes. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr CONNOLLY —The night before last in the adjournment debate I addressed the House on the issue of a grant of $72,500 from the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies for the preparation of a political biography on the life of Mr Charles Perkins, Secretary to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. The Age of 9 October and also the Sydney Morning Herald of the same date subsequently carried accounts of my remarks. I refer specifically to comments in the Age, one of which read: The principal of the institute, Mr Warwick Dix, said no one on the council had opposed the grant at the meeting, although a couple of members had said that other research applications should have higher priority. The implication of that is that I did not oppose the grant. All I can say for the record is that I spoke most strenuously at that meeting against the proposition that funds should be provided by the Institute for the preparation of a book on Mr Perkins and that view was supported by at least one other member of the council. If it be thought that I did not vote against the proposal, I would strongly suggest that Mr Warwick Dix review the manner in which the meetings are conducted because there is not the slightest question-I did not vote for this proposition. I later spoke to Mr Perkins about it. He confirmed to me that he had not given his approval for the preparation of this book. That again is contrary to remarks contained in the Sydney Morning Herald of today's date and again requires further explanation from all those involved. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —Yes, Madam Speaker. In Tuesday's edition of the Australian a story appeared written by David Leser with the heading `Lib warns Baume over expelling war suspects'. Some remarks in the story are attributed to a Mr Urbanchich in which he said: I can't read the mind of Senator Baume, but when Senator Baume said in Parliament about six weeks ago that he would vote for me to be removed from the party, that view is out of step with the party, and (the Leader of the Opposition) Mr Howard . . . I point out to the House that I am unaware of the basis on which that remark was made by Mr Urbanchich. Mr Hand —When are you going to disown him? Mr HOWARD —Hang on. I would not get too excited if I were the honourable member. Dr Theophanous —Yes, disown him. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Both honourable members on my right will remain silent. Mr HOWARD —I would point out for the information of the House that not only do Senator Peter Baume and Senator Sir John Carrick enjoy my total support and confidence, but also I would further state that when the resolution to expel Mr Urbanchich from the New South Wales division of the Liberal Party was moved several years ago by my colleague the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), I not only supported the resolution but spoke in favour of it. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives 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 Blunt,Mr Cobb,Mr Coleman,Mr Cowan,Mr Dobie,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Hicks,Mr Howard,Mr Hunt,Ms McHugh,Mr Ruddock,Mr Sinclair,Mr Snow and Mr West. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that many Post Office agencies are to be closed. They provide a network of offices with postal and agency services to residential areas and small communities. They serve a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced if forced to travel further to purchase postal items or collect parcels. It would be an unnecessary expense particularly for pensioners without their own transport. We maintain that the purpose of Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer. They are a community centre particularly in country areas and if necessary they should be subsidised to retain them. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that The House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of Post Office agencies and that the network should be extended, with the Agency services they offer expanded. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Andrew,Mr Beale,Mr Bilney,Mr Braithwaite,Mr Ian Cameron,Mr Cobb,Mr Drummond,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Hawker,Mr Milton,Mr Nehl,Mr Ruddock and Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Mr Kent,Ms McHugh,Mr Milton,Mr Scott and Dr Theophanous. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware that it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce divisions in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum.'' And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Hawker,Mr Reith and Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and the 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 its 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 Downer,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 Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That families have been gravely disadvantaged by a serious decline in the level of their net disposable income through: Failure to index family allowances-resulting in a 50 per cent loss in their real value since 1976 Abolition of family allowances for dependants who have turned 18-even those still at school Failure to increase the spouse rebate since 1982 Discriminatory taxation system-which penalizes single income families. Recognising the cost benefit to taxpayers when the intact family unit itself delivers essential care to the extended family. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take immediate action to: Restore the lost value of family allowances and to index them to cover future price rises Introduce optional income-splitting for taxation purposes Retain the spouse rebate. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Howard. 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,Mr Milton and Mr Scott. The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned, plead that Parliament will legislate, or act in accordance with the present legislation to replace the current members of the Film Censorship Board who have admitted to Senator Harradine on 12th December, 1984 as reported in the Senate Select Committee on Video Material, (see attached extracts), that they are not applying either the blasphemy or obscenity tests as required under the provisions of the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations, and that these persons be replaced by persons who will apply these and the other related test in accordance with the said Regulations. Your petitioners humbly pray that you will give this matter your earnest consideration. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Downer and Mr Howard. 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 and Mr Reith. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth 1. That the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Bill 1986 is having a detrimental effect on the car industry generally in South Australia, and more particularly, on employment in that industry. 2. The Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Bill 1986 contains many anomalies, inconsistencies and mistakes in drafting and its administrative implementation is an unwarranted burden on Australian businesses and the Australian taxpayer. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this House repeal as a matter of utmost urgency this regressive legislation which imposes a disincentive to economic and employment growth, thereby jeopardising the well-being and living standards of all Australians. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Andrew. To the Honourable 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. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned at the impact of the new Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds: its severe and damaging effect on business confidence, investment and incentive, especially in the rural, mining and small business sectors; its capacity to seriously worsen unemployment through the additional costs it imposes; its extremely negative impact on the competitiveness of export industries at a time when the nation desperately needs to improve its trading performance; in that it may compel many honest and decent citizens to defy 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 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 business 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 Sinclair. 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: We are opposed to the imposition of a Capital Gains Tax. Your petitioners humbly pray: That the Honourable House repeal any Act and reject any Bill which imposes this disincentive to economic growth. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Beale. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully draws to your attention: 1. The lack of personnel and the general apathy exhibited to arriving international guests at major ports of entry into Australia by the Department of Immigration. 2. That valued international visitors gain such a poor initial impression of our services. We your petitioners therefore humbly pray that an awareness exercise should be initiated so that these serious problems can be rectified immediately. by Mr John Brown. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: By cutting ESL funding and eliminating funding for community languages and multicultural education you have attacked tens of thousands of Australian children. You have condemned these children with limited English to gross educational inequality and very dim prospects for their future. On behalf of these children we call on you to remove this new discrimination which your budget has guaranteed by immediately restoring ESL and Multicultural education funding. by Mr Coleman. To the 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 a Second Language programs and the axing of Multicultural Education Program 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: The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: That the humble petitioners have grave concern about recent change in the Extradition (Foreign States) Act of 1966 which deny basic rights which have been a cornerstone of the English and Australian law for over seven hundred years. We are speaking of the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and the right of an individual to defend himself against his accusers. This concern has come to light during recent extradition proceedings against Messrs Hempel and Etheredge in Western Australia. We are concerned that because judicial protection of these basic rights has been excluded from the Act, refugees, migrants, Australian overseas travellers, and visitors are at risk when they have been to (or come from) countries where the norms and practices of human rights and civil liberties are below traditionally accepted Australian standards. We the undersigned petitioners, therefore urge the government to re-examine the Extradition (Foreign States) Act (as amended in 1985), and amend the current Act so that the rights of the accused are once again judicially protected in Australia. In addition, we urge the government to refrain from entering into any further extradition treaties or proceedings under the current Act until the process of re-examination and amendment of the Act has occurred. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Government should cancel the Fringe Benefits Tax they intend to impose on businesses throughout Australia because: 1. The tax discriminates against charitable organisations, sports clubs, private schools and religious organisations: 2. The tax will mean employees around Australia will suffer reductions in the renumeration 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 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 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 drastically cutting E.S.L. funding, you have disadvantaged thousands of Australian children. Not only will students with limited English face gross educational inequality, but the entire Australian community will feel the wider effect-through the resultant inability of some of its citizens to contribute effectively to Australian society. On behalf of the children who will be directly affected, and the Australian community generally, we call on you to restore full funding for the general support element of the Commonwealth E.S.L. program. by Mr Humphreys. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia of Albanian back-ground respectfully showeth: We most strongly oppose the use of the `Special Broadcasting Service' and the taxpayers funds for nationalist political purposes. We are deeply concerned that the existing Albanian program on Radio 3EA Melbourne is not meeting the needs of the community. It is being used against 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: 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 6 August 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that your petitioners wish that all medicines prescribed by a registered Medical Practitioner be made available free of charge by the Government to all pensioners for the following reasons: 1. The enormous cost of some drugs, including pain relieving ones, not at present on the `free list'. 2. That certain drugs essential for permanently disabled, such as epileptics are at present being charged for and therefore present a great financial burden to the pensioner. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will consider our wishes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Speaker and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: That we wish to protest at the cutbacks announced in the Federal Budget of August 1986. Large numbers of people live in poverty and many more are now moving in that direction. Gains in education, multi-culturalism, welfare and in many other areas that have been important to the Australian people are being eroded and in some cases totally destroyed. Members of the ethnic community have been hit twice as hard by the August budget. They experience the hardship of general economic policies as well as the severe cutbacks that affect services essential to developing equal opportunity and the promotion of multi-culturalism. We therefore call upon the Federal Government to reconsider the economic direction which it is pursuing and develop economic policies that cater for the needs of all Australians. Specifically, such policies must include the following which are vital to the ethnic and general Australian community at large: The Federal Government to undertake full responsibility to maintain and expand the ESL programme; Retain the Human Rights Commission; Retain the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs; Reinstate funding to the education centres programme; Maintain the autonomy of SBS Television and Ethnic Radio; Maintain the branches of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in Albury, Wollongong, Newcastle in NSW, as well as the other branches in Victoria and Queensland; To not introduce Tertiary Education fees; To maintain the Bill of Rights legislation. Your petitioners as in duty bound shall ever humbly pray. by Ms McHugh. 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 Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows: We wish to register our concern at the intention of the Commonwealth Health Department's proposal to drop essential medication from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Antihistamines, Pain Killers, Cough Mixtures and Angina treatments are essential medication in numerous chronic medical conditions. Deletion of these medications will cause long term suffering and disadvantage a large proportion of the community least able to afford the increased cost of these medicines after their deletion from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Those on old age Pensions, Repatriation Benefits, Concessional Benefits and others on low incomes will be particularly disadvantaged. Your Petitioners humbly pray that the Government does not proceed with its proposal. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Millar. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That the Capital Gains tax penalises small business, discourages long-term investment, hinders capital formation and wealth creation, has contributed to Australia's economic crisis and contains many anomalies. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately repeal the Income Tax Assessment Amendment (Capital Gains) Act 1986. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Reith. To the Honourable the Speaker and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth 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 Reith. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we the undersigned are totally opposed to the Government's policy to tax pony club income. Your petitioners urge the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to allow tax exempt status for pony clubs. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Reith. To the Speaker and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: We the undersigned residents of Australia totally reject any move to cut funding to Australia-wide English as a Second Language programs in schools. We request that the Australian Government restore funding to the 1985 level in the 1986-87 Budget. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives as assembled. We, the undersigned concerned residents, visitors and holiday makers, reject the proposed military and industrial developments in Jervis Bay and support the conclusion of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation 1975 which found that Jervis Bay should be preserved for recreation and scientific reference purposes with sound management planning to safeguard the environment and retain the natural landscape and atmosphere. We also call for the area to be put on the Register of the National Estate, and an appropriate National Park and Marine Reserve System to be declared. by Mr Saunderson. 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 least 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 of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: We the undersigned residents of Australia deplore the decision by the Federal Government to amalgamate the SBS with the ABC. At present there is no guarantee that the principles of multicultural broadcasting will be maintained at any level of the ABC administration. An independent and strong SBS should be retained. We humbly pray that you oppose the amalgamation of the SBS and ABC. by Dr Theophanous. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: There is an urgent need to up-grade and extend the facilities at the Northern Rivers College of Advanced Education. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Provide the necessary capital funding for the Northern Rivers CAE to ensure North Coast students have access to a tertiary institution capable of providing them with the skills they will need to meet the challenges of the future. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: 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 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 Gorman. 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 assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: (1) That in the past, because of their remoteness, citizens in rural areas have not been able to receive SBS (Multicultural) television through conventional means. (2) That recently those citizens have been able to receive the SBS television service from the AUSSAT satellite by means of receive-only earth stations. (3) Now express concern that by Government decision this service is to be terminated. Your petitioners therefore urge that SBS television continue to be made available to citizens in rural areas of Australia by means of the AUSSAT 1 satellite and receive-only earth stations. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hicks. To the Right Honourable Speaker and the Honourable members of the House of Representatives in the assembled parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. We the humble petitioners at Gippsland Institute Student Union, in the Federal electorate of McMillan respectfully showeth: That the introduction of an Administration Charge of $250 for higher education students in Appropriation Bill 1986-1987 (Volume-1, Page-98) is a regressive step for the Education system; That the introduction of an Administration Charge will force students to withdraw from studies and thereby destroy the opportunity for them to complete their education; That the Administration charge is a form of Tuition Fees and as such destroys the principle of free education for all; We the humble petitioners hereby request you to amend the appropriation Bill 1986-1987, so that the system of free education for all students will continue. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McGauran. To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned, respectfully showeth that we, the people of Victoria would like to remind you of your moral duty in regard to your decision to sell uranium to France, against ALP policy. The French are still nuclear testing in the South Pacific, despite world wide protests. We therefore call on you to reverse the decision to sell uranium to France. by Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of the Division of Cowper respectfully sheweth: That the Bill of Rights Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill, if passed by the Parliament, will undermine human and civil rights in Australia; will attack the institution of the family in our country, and will destroy States Rights and the federal nature of our Commonwealth. Your petitioners humbly pray that: The Parliament rejects these Bills; abolishes the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and moves to withdraw ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Victoria respectfully request that the Federal Government take responsibility for existing and future funding of child care services and that such funding allocation be at such level to ensure the maintenance of quality child care. We further respectfully request that proper planning of services occur and that the Federal Government enter into formalised agreements with State and Local Governments to achieve this result. by Mr Shipton. Petitions received. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment: Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill 1986 Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill 1986 Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill 1986 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Hunt) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The damage and high cost of the Government's tax regime on country Australia, especially the farm and small business sectors. 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 HUNT(Gwydir)(3.00) —No sector of the Australian community has been harder hit by the Government's mind-boggling tax policy than those who live in country areas of Australia-the farmers and small business people. It is also having an indirect effect on those people living in country towns and those who are seeking jobs. The Hawke Labor Government's tax policies are in shambles. Nothing highlights this disastrous situation more than the events of the past few weeks, particularly, the last few days, when the Government has had to admit, under Opposition pressure, that the fringe benefits tax is full of anomalies, inequities and uncertainties. Here we are three weeks away from `D' Day-the day that all employers are supposed to make their returns to the Taxation Commissioner under the fringe benefits tax legislation. Next week we will witness the spectacle of another mini-tax summit with representatives from employers, accountancy firms, and others who will be called together to try to help the Government to sort out its unbelievable mess. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), in answer to questions this week, revealed his total lack of understanding-or that is what he has tried to convey to this Parliament-of the damage that the fringe benefits tax will do not only to the Australian farm sector and the small business sector, but also to charitable organisations, churches, bodies such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, sporting organisations, and those disabled and aged people employing in-house domiciliary assistance. In spite of the fact that the Government announced the fringe benefits tax on 19 September last year and introduced the legislation in May this year, it still has not been able to get its act together. How the hell does it expect the taxpayers of Australia-the employers and employees-to get their act together by 28 October. They have no chance. The Prime Minister, at a meeting with farmers in Canowindra earlier this year, gave an assurance to farmers that he would get the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to take whatever action was necessary to overcome the anomalies so far as farm workers' accommodation was concerned. On two occasions in the Parliament I asked the Prime Minister to honour the undertaking he gave to Canowindra farmers before the legislation was passed in the Senate. No action was taken. Numerous representations were made to the Government bringing to its attention the anomalies and the inequities associated with this tax, but the Government has refused to listen. Those representations have come not only from our side of the House, but also from the Government's own side. They have come from farm organisations, industry organisations and other groups over the past few months. It is no good the Prime Minister or any other Minister saying in this place that they did not know that these problems were inherent in their legislation. How can the Government justify a situation whereby a small business proprietor or a farmer has been barraged with 139 pages of legislation, 167 pages of explanatory memorandum, two booklets of 69 pages, 14 rulings of 159 pages, pamphlets, Press releases and a video tape. No wonder Tom Burns, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in Queensland, has called this legislation bureaucratic bull-you-know-what. He has used much stronger terms. Of course it is bureaucratic bulldust. Look at all these papers! They are all over the place. It is no wonder that people are chucking the things in the wastepaper basket. They are fed up to the teeth. There is not a farmer in the countryside who is employing labour who is not fed up to the teeth with this wretched rubbish which is coming across his ruddy desk. It is a mind-boggling, iniquitous, confusing tax. The Government has violated the fundamental requirements of any tax system-simplicity and equity. How does the Government expect the employers of this country to comply with the requirements to make returns by 28 October when it has resorted to a mini-tax summit in a desperate attempt to come to grips with its own bureaucratic bungling? The Government should abolish this tax immediately. It should do so before that stubborn, headstrong, pigheaded Treasurer returns. If the Government is not prepared to abolish the tax, in fairness to the employers, employees, taxpayers generally, the Australian Taxation Office and indeed to itself as a government, it should defer the implementation date until 1 July next year or at least until 1 January. It is no good continuing with the administration of this tax at this time. It is nonsense to say that the Government is ready, the Taxation Office is ready and the Australian community is ready to comply with this incredible bureaucratic mess. The events of the last few days have highlighted the worst example of government bungling to which the Australian people and taxpayers have been exposed. The tax policy is the consequence of a back room deal done by the Prime Minister with the Australian Council of Trade Unions in the closing hours of the now infamous National Taxation Summit held last year. The deal was done behind the Treasurer's back. As a consequence, the Australian people have had imposed upon them one of the worst, most complex, most confusing and most iniquitous tax systems yet introduced in this country. No tax in my memory has caused more anger or confusion. No wonder people throughout Australia claim that they will refuse to co-operate, refuse to fill in forms and refuse to pay the tax. Nothing highlights the concern more than the decision taken by the Livestock and Grain Producers Association in Sydney this week when it unanimously adopted a no-pay advice which is now being distributed to its 22,000 strong membership. That advice is: `Do not pay the tax'. That is civil disobedience, but these people have apparently been forced to take this action-forced by the bureaucratic bungling and the lack of answers from the Taxation Office that comply with answers given in regional offices. They are fed up to the teeth. The Government has saddled ordinary Australians with reams of time-consuming paper work, often to no purpose, making life more difficult in what are difficult economic circumstances for business today. The keeping of a log book for vehicles, the keeping of records on farms of stores and goods provided to employees is making decent, hardworking Australians little bureaucrats. I can think of no more Bolshevik action by any government in a Western democracy than the way in which our Government is trying to administer this tax. Last night the Prime Minister on national television attempted to justify his fringe benefits tax about-face. I was amazed to hear him say: Mr Keating indicated in fact a few weeks ago he would be bringing in some legislative changes. He has already indicated that. This is in stark contrast to the Treasurer's reply to a question I asked of him on 24 September. He said: Let me make it clear about fringe benefits taxation. The Government is not going to alter the fringe benefits tax. The Government knows it has to alter the fringe benefits tax. It is a mind-boggling, bureaucratic bungle. The fringe benefits tax is unacceptable, unworkable and clearly people are not going to put up with it. Not only have the fringe benefits and capital gains taxes had a depressing effect on rural areas, on farmers and their property values and on small businesses, but they also represent a real threat to their enterprises. Mr Cobb —They are costing jobs, too. Mr HUNT —Exactly. The capital gains tax has been introduced in spite of the promise that the Prime Minister made in these words: Let me make one point so that even our opponents can understand it, and let me make it beyond all their powers of misrepresentation and distortion . . . There will be no new capital gains tax. Here is this promise on this sheet of paper for all honourable members to see. The Prime Minister gave that undertaking to the Australian people in his election policy speech at the Sydney Opera House in February 1983. That promise was made with as much vigour as the undertaking given by the Government in the 1983 election campaign that Labor would not impose a sales tax or an excise tax on wine. That promise was given by none other than the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and he underlined the words `will not'. Yet the wine industry copped a 10 per cent sales tax the next year which has now been doubled to 20 per cent this year putting the final nail in the coffin of hundreds of winegrowers in this country. In November 1984 we were also promised by none other than the Prime Minister: For the term of our next government the Medicare levy will not be increased. That is another undertaking and promise broken. The litany of broken promises is associated with the most savage taxing government in Australian peacetime history. These taxes have been imposed in spite of an accelerating cost-price crisis for farmers-a crisis which is now affecting our major regional service centres, where unemployment is running at extreme levels. Last week the Bureau of Agricultural Economics informed us that in the last financial year the terms of trade for farmers dropped by 8.1 per cent-five times more than in the previous year-and net farmer incomes are expected to be about $3,400 this financial year. Yet they will be subject to this fringe benefits tax. The Government is bleeding country Australians with its assets test, the capital gains tax, the monstrous fringe benefits tax, the lump sum superannuation tax, and the heavy substantiation requirements as from 1 July this year. Under extreme pressure the stud stock valuation for tax purposes, which was one of the hidden traps in the rural statement which was submitted to this Parliament by the Minister for Primary Industry on 15 April, has finally been put down, as indeed was the quarantining of farm losses-an ill-conceived tax imposition with which the Government also found it could not live. At least it had the sense to drop it. It should also have the sense to drop this idiotic fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax at a time of severe recession in so many rural industries and amongst so many families. Undoubtedly, the most devastating attack of all has already been launched on country Australians-indeed all Australians-with the quadrupling of the fuel excise. When the coalition Government left office in 1983 fuel excise revenue returned about $1.3 billion. This year it will reach $5.5 billion- Mr Howard —That cannot be right. Mr HUNT —It is right. It is an increase of $4.2 billion, or 336 per cent. What an outrageous increase in fuel tax, denying the Australian people-every motorist, employed or otherwise-of the benefit of a fall in world oil prices. The long awaited tax cuts which are now deferred until December have virtually been financed already by taxing all the motorists in Australia, most of whom are taxpayers. Taxpayers and consumers are being taxed through the petrol pumps in a most rapacious manner. Once again, none are hit harder than those who live in country Australia, with their requirement to travel long distances between centres and their requirement to use relatively large quantities of petrol. The Government has ripped off country Australians, with its tax policies eroding already small incomes-in some cases, negative incomes-and aggravating the severe rural unemployment problem. The Minister for Primary Industry let the cat out of the bag yesterday in respect of how the Prime Minister is conducting the affairs of this nation. He said that Cabinet had not even been consulted by the Prime Minister before he announced his review of the administration of the tax. Once again the Prime Minister is taking sloppy decisions on the run, because of the pressure of the Opposition and those outside Parliament. The Government knew about the anomalies. Let us not deceive the people: The Government has known for some time that these anomalies were there, but it was going to try to tough it out. It is not good enough for the Government to say that farmers should be grateful for having the fringe benefits tax levied on them rather than their employees to save them book work. It is an absolutely outrageous way to treat the taxpayers and other people in the country areas. I call upon the Government as a matter of urgency to stop bashing country Australians-the farmers, the small business people and others. I call upon the Government to drop its ludicrous, confusing and unfair fringe benefits tax, which was labelled by the Deputy Leader of the Queensland Branch of the Australian Labor Party as bureaucratic bull you-know-what. If it cannot face its own failings and admit that it has made a mistake, it could at least defer the introduction until 1 January next year. Following the next election the Liberal and National parties in government will abolish the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax and the assets test lock, stock and barrel. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(3.15) —The Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), finished his speech by saying that the Opposition in government would wipe out the fringe benefits tax. I am quite amazed that it put him forward as a speaker today because last week in a radio interview at Gunnedah he said that the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, had made it clear that he would not let fringe benefits become another tax avoidance device. To his credit, the Deputy Leader of the National Party went on to say: In other words he is not going to allow company executives to have half their salaries paid by kind without tax such as providing a house, interest-free loans, Mercedes Benz cars and free education for their children. So Mr Hunt, the Deputy Leader of the National Party, came clean. We all know that the Liberal Party of Australia is working on some form of fringe benefits tax. We all know that the Liberal Party in opposition is concerned about fringe benefits, as well it should be. We do not have to go far back into history to see that. When the Leader of the Opposition was Treasurer, in 1980, he tried to do something about miners' housing. The government of the day was very concerned about the whole area of fringe benefits. If one looks at the White Paper on taxation reform in this country, one will see the statistics in the various tables showing the leakage. Under the heading `Factual Evidence: Fringe Benefits', it is stated that the increase in the number of employees receiving fringe benefits between August 1983 and August 1984 was 25.5 per cent. If the Opposition is to be responsible it will be very concerned about fringe benefits. It has given us evidence of that. The Deputy Leader of the National Party has been honest enough to say it. Of course, it is not something that we have concocted in government. Taxation of fringe benefits is already provided for in the Income Tax Assessment Act. Again I will read from the White Paper on taxation reform: Some fringe benefits, such as cash payments and benefits convertible into cash, are income according to ordinary concepts and therefore assessable under section 25 (1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act. The income tax law provides for the taxing of other fringe benefits under a general comprehensive provision (section 26 (e)) that requires the value to the taxpayer of all allowances, gratuities, benefits or bonuses (whether received in cash or in kind) related to employment to be included in assessable income. Despite the comprehensive coverage of section 26 (e), the taxation of benefits which do not take the form of outright cash payments . . . poses practical difficulties. For non-cash benefits, there is a difficult question in each case, for taxpayer and tax administrator alike, of determining the value to the taxpayer of the benefit provided. So, it is already there in two parts of the taxation Act. That is why the previous Government focused on it and it is why this Government focused on it. But there was an acceleration. The proportion of total tax taken in this country was going down very severely for the corporate sector; more and more of the incidence of taxation was falling on wage and salary earners; and increasingly wage and salary earners were taking benefits apart from strictly determined taxable income. The consequential loss to revenue was assessed, when this report was written, at some $700m. The Opposition is being very coy about what it would do; it has given evidence that it would do something about it, so I assume that it is looking at section 26 (e). If any government is to address this whole question of leakage, there are really only three options. It can try to tighten up section 26(e). Just assume that that is what the Opposition intends to do. The whole problem with that is that it would impose an additional burden on employers, far beyond what the Government is now proposing. They would have to allocate the fringe benefits across the range of individual employees and remit the pay as you earn deductions every week, not every quarter. In other words to make section 26(e) work, employers would have a lot more paper work than what the Government proposes. If the Opposition is not going to apply fringe benefits tax by tidying up section 26(e) and if it is going to stick with what the Leader of the Opposition now says about fringe benefits tax, as he moves from one position to another-namely, that it is wrong in principle-it will be going back to the rorts. If the Opposition forms a government there will be a bigger and bigger tax leakage. Does the National Party seriously suggest that wage and salary earners should have more and more of their income determined by benefits outside normal wages? What will it do about that? Will it introduce a broadly based consumption tax? Is that what it is being coy about? It is all right to be critical but we have a real problem. The provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act are not working and there are three options. We can do what the Government is trying to do with fairness and equity, we can allow the rorts to continue or we can try to tighten up on section 26(e). The latter course would produce far more paperwork than we would have with the proposal that is before us. This is a situation that has to be addressed seriously and not merely in terms of political opportunism. No one likes to pay taxes but, on the other hand, no one likes to see one group in the community going scot free. I remember the Australian newspaper running a campaign in 1976-77 under the slogan `Join the tax revolt' and some members of the business sector did that. That was done by the dishonest people. There was enormous tax evasion and avoidance under the previous Government, which did nothing about it until the death knock. Let us consider some of the new taxes that the previous Government introduced. Not all of them were greeted with unbridled enthusiasm. It introduced the bank accounts debit tax, the 2 per cent revenue duty, the 2 1/2 per cent Medibank levy, the 1978-79 income surcharge and sales taxes on pet foods, soft drink bottles, television tubes, safety belts and a whole range of other items. I could go through a range of increases in sales tax. It introduced excise on off-road distillate, a 33.3 per cent increase in sales tax rates, an increase in the excise on tobacco, petrol and beer, and the massive $3 billion tax take on the crude oil levy, so let it not be thought that this Government is unique in having applied income taxes. This Government is trying to bring about taxation reform and is doing so. The Opposition is concerned because we shall have a tax cut of a total value of $4 1/2 billion by July next year, with the first instalment on 1 December of this year. There will be the additional $500m with respect to tax imputation and group off-sets. There is much misrepresentation about these matters, and I heard a gentleman saying on the radio the other day that the effective tax on company profits is of the order of 79 per cent. He failed to point out that with imputation the tax rate on all company profits will be down to 49 per cent. This is real reform. Everyone will benefit from our taxation reform. Does the Opposition have a policy on tax cuts worth $1.5 billion at the first stage on 1 December, with the cuts worth $4.5 billion when fully implemented from 1 July 1987? The cuts will reduce the Opposition's top marginal tax rate from 60c in the dollar to 49c and reduce all marginal income tax rates. Does it have any policy on tax cuts worth $12 a week to typical workers? The answer is: `No, of course it does not'. The Opposition will wipe out Medicare and allow the rorts to continue unless it decides to tighten up on section 26 (e), which will cause more paperwork, or unless it inflicts on wage and salary earners a broad-based consumption tax and allow all its big business mates and the rich to get off scot free and rort the system. It has only a few choices and instead of indulging in political opportunism it should face the facts. Let us consider some of the facts. This will be a rather novel experience after what we have heard today. All taxpayers face the same income tax rates except for two major exceptions. These are the zone allowances that are available to taxpayers in particularly remote areas and the tax averaging that is available to farmers. Is that discrimination against country Australia? No, it is not. It is a reflection of the Government's view that the disadvantages facing country Australians should be fully addressed in policies. This is our strategy. The only differential treatment that we apply to country residents are measures to offset the disadvantages of remoteness and locality. But what does the National party want to do? We have that man in Queensland with that corrupt minority National Party Government and elements of the National Party in this House that want a flat tax. That is nice and simple. It is possible to go around and con people by saying: `We shall bring in a flat tax'. At least the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) had the guts to say what absolute nonsense that was. What would a flat tax do for farmers? It implies an increased tax burden on country taxpayers in general and farmers in particular. Under the flat tax proposal of the National Party, farmers receiving the average farm income, as estimated by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, would pay about $1,675 more in tax per year than at present. Let us consider the Government's tax reform package. The rorts that the package redresses are greater in the cities than in country areas and the package will be to the net advantage of country residents. The Deputy Leader of the National Party has focused mainly on fringe benefits, and who has school fees paid by employers? What is the value of subsidised housing in the city compared with in the country? Where are company cars used as part of salary packages in the bush? Who receives low interest loans, hostess allowances, free holidays and all the other fringe benefits that the Opposition so conspicuously failed to tax when in Government? The answer is city executives. How many farmers provide employees with these sort of benefits? Fringe benefits tax is about employees, and the Opposition wants city executives to be paid private school fees by the employer at the expense of the many country people who have to struggle hard to pay boarding school fees. The Opposition keeps harping about the effect of fringe benefits tax on farmers, but to be subject to FBT it is necessary to provide fringe benefits to an employee. We know that 85 per cent of farmers do not have any full-time employees. What is the value of the fringe benefits that are provided? What is the value of farm accommodation miles away from cities, particularly when the Government's 40 per cent remote area concession is taken into account? That is the extent of fringe benefits in the bush. Farmers, like all country residents, will be benefiting from tax cuts that the fringe benefits tax will be funding. Those people paying the 60 per cent marginal rate in the bush will be paying 49 per cent. In addition, there will be the other reductions in tax. What does the Opposition want to do with fringe benefits? No one knows. It does not want rorts but it does not want to stop the rorts. We listened to the words of the Leader of the National Party this morning. He said: The reality is that the field of tax evasion is not in the field of fringe benefits. That is absolute nonsense. It has been demonstrated that it is costing honest taxpaying people some $700m a year. However, the Deputy Leader of the National Party says that there are rackets in the fringe benefits tax area. There is a division between the Leader and Deputy Leader of the National Party. The Deputy Leader has identified school fees and motor vehicles and he is right, but there are many more besides those. The fact is that fiscal necessity-the necessity to fund the Opposition's wild promises-will force the Opposition to tax fringe benefits. I think that it will resurrect and enforce section 26 (e) if it ever gets into government. This means that all employers will face the same paperwork burden that now applies in calculating fringe benefits, and the additional burden of attributing the benefits to individual employees and remitting the pay as you earn tax. That is the only alternative. Let it be clearly understood that business objections to the Government's fringe benefits tax will be less than those raised against the Opposition's proposals. What else is there in the tax reform package that is supposed to discriminate against country Australians? Is it the extension of immediate deductibility of soil conservation expenditure to the broader concept of land degradation? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr FIFE(Hume)(3.30) —In a personal sense, one cannot help feeling sorry for the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) because he is continually called upon by his Government to defend the Government and to apologise for its disastrous rural economic policies right around Australia. Today has been no exception. I am bound to say that he was far from convincing. When considering the high cost of the Hawke Government's tax regime on country Australia, especially the farm and small business sectors, it is very important to keep in mind that the Government's top priority long term objective is to make Australia a socialist state. There is no doubt that the Government has embarked upon a carefully thought out systematic program designed first to cripple and then to drive Australian families out of farming and business operations. The Government is pursuing a policy of big government, big unions and big business. Government control of business is the socialists' aim. A first step towards achieving this objective is to eliminate family enterprises because they cannot be easily commanded by powerful trade unions and Labor governments, certainly not as effectively as can large corporations. To accelerate the growth of the Public Service, which now has approximately 15,000 more employees than when this Government came to office, the Hawke Government is taxing the pants off farmers and operators of small business. This Government is the biggest spending, biggest taxing government in Australia's peacetime history. This afternoon, the Minister for Primary Industry referred to the tax cuts promised by this Government. We do not know whether the tax cuts will come or not. If they do come, after the tax cuts promised for 1 July next year, the average Australian taxpayer will be paying $36 a week more in tax than he was paying in March 1983 when this Government came to office. I remind honourable members and the Australian public that it was the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) who, as President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions in 1971, said: I believe that ultimately the welfare of the people of Australia will be best served when the means of production, distribution and exchange are removed from private ownership and are owned by the people. A leopard might be able to change its habitat, but it will never change its spots. Dr Harry Edwards —Who said that? Mr FIFE —The Prime Minister. He also told the Fabian Society's centenary dinner in Melbourne on 18 May 1984: Most reformers think that all they have got to do in a political democracy is to obtain a majority. This is a profound mistake. What has to be changed is not only the vote that is cast, but also the mental climate in which Parliament and the Government both live and work. To ensure that his self-confessed link with the Fabian socialists could not be misinterpreted, the Prime Minister added: . . . that I find to be an accurate description of the approach I and my colleagues have tried to bring to the affairs of this nation in our first term in office. In that speech, which every Australian should read, the Prime Minister acknowledged the debt of his own Government to the Fabians and referred to several Fabians, including Jim Cairns and also, to use his own words, `not the least our own Fabius Maximus-Gough Whitlam himself'. The Prime Minister concluded this very revealing speech by quoting the Fabian Society's motto, which in part reads: For the right moment you must wait, as Fabius did, most patiently, but when the time comes you must strike hard, as Fabius did, or your waiting will be in vain and fruitless. The Hawke Government has certainly struck. This time it has struck at the heart of the Australian farming and small business sectors. It has done so in a brutal and dishonest way. At a time when Australia's rural community is suffering badly from the depressed state of international commodity markets, the Government's deliberate high interest rate policy is severely compounding those problems. The Government was elected on a promise to bring interest rates down. However, let us consider what has happened since the last election. The prime lending rate in Australia was 14 per cent at the time of the last election. Today, it is around 19 per cent. Mr Hunt —Five percentage points more. Mr FIFE —It is five percentage points more. That has not been caused by accident. High interest rates are the direct result of this Government's intervention to prop up the Australian dollar, which collapsed as a result of poor economic management. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has admitted publicly many times that, by its own decision, the Government has forced up interest rates. The Treasurer is recorded in Hansard of 20 March as saying: There has been a $3.8 billion deterioration on a terms of trade basis on an annual rate over the course of the year with which the exchange rate has had to cope. It could not possibly have coped if we had had demand running to strongly. We have turned the wick up on interest rates to moderate that demand. Some Treasurer, and some wick. When the Treasurer turned the wick up on the interest rates, he caused an explosion-we have not heard whether it was an intended or unintended explosion-the like of which has not previously been experienced in Australian peacetime history. We are no longer competitive with our major trading partners. Our interest rates, which rose a staggering 27.9 per cent in 1985-86, are putting people out of business and work all over Australia. Our prime interest rate of 19 per cent contrasts sharply with that of Canada at 9.8 per cent; France, 9.5 per cent; West Germany, 7 per cent; the United States of America, 7.5 per cent; and Japan, 4.1 per cent. The Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Hunt) has alluded to the fringe benefits tax. That is another example of the Prime Minister's Fabian socialist exercise in gradualism, only this time he has bitten off more than he can chew. He made no mention of this new farm and this business tax before the last election. Instead he thought that he would sneak it in after the election and get away with it by taxing the employer. Again, his judgment was bad. The Australian community is rebelling because the Government's legislation is wrong in principle; it is punitive; it is bureaucratic; and, in short, it is clearly on the nose. To highlight its hate of farmers and people engaged in small businesses who operate as sole traders or in partnership, the Government has discriminated against owners of small businesses and farmers who do not operate under a trust or company structure and the ordinary citizen who uses a car for the purpose of earning his or her income by imposing a formula considerably harsher than that applying under the fringe benefits tax legislation. A corporation liable for fringe benefits tax for motor vehicle usage can opt to use a statutory formula instead of a log book. If the vehicle travels more than 40,000 kilometres in a full year, under the formula, the corporation would pay tax on 6 per cent of the value of the vehicle, which would represent between 80 per cent and 90 per cent of the cost of running the vehicle. On the other hand, owners of small businesses and farmers who do not operate under a trust or company structure and the ordinary citizen who uses a car for the purpose of earning his or her income under the substantiation formula can claim only one-third of the operating cost or pay tax on 12 per cent of the cost of the vehicle. During Question Time yesterday and today, the Prime Minister selectively quoted from a submission sent to him by Western Australian Premier Burke. He did that to try to establish that the submission, which was the work of a number of Western Australian organisations, supported the Government's fringe benefits tax. As is often the case, the Prime Minister failed to read the most telling passage of the document, which was, in fact, the summary. It reads: In summary, the existing FBT arrangements do not maximise net total equity/efficiency/simplicity benefits. As well they fail four of the nine principles of tax reform announced by the Prime Minister in 1985. The Government's fuel tax policy, which is causing great concern to the Australian public, is also of tremendous importance and concern to primary producers and operators of small business. Before the 1983 election the Labor Party promised to reduce fuel prices and was very critical of the policies being pursued by the Fraser Government. Excise on fuel in Australia has doubled during the past 12 months, to 20c a litre, during a period when world crude oil prices have fallen. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BEDDALL(Rankin)(3.40) —I am amazed that members of the Opposition can contrive such a matter of public importance as the one introduced by the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) and seriously believe that the Australian public could accept that there is any credibility left in the Opposition. The honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife), in his 10 minutes, addressed the issue of taxation for perhaps two minutes during his speech. He rambled on about socialism and all the other evils that he tries to find under the bed. The honourable member for Gwydir misled the Parliament in many ways on various issues, which I will address later. What is fundamental about members of the Opposition is that they do not understand the principles of a fringe benefits tax. Five basic principles apply to a fringe benefits tax: Firstly, it must be a benefit; secondly, it must be provided by an employer; thirdly, it must be provided to an employee; fourthly, it must be over and above wages and salaries; and, fifthly, it must not be deductible in the hands of an employee. The honourable member for Gwydir was a senior Minister in the Fraser-Howard Government. That Government's only contribution to the taxation debate in this country was to elavate tax avoidance and evasion to an art form. This was to the direct disadvantage of honest farmers and small businessmen who could not avail themselves of the shonky tax scams that flourished under the coalition. In fact, the tax avoidance industry was the only growth industry in Australia during the seven dark years of Liberal-National coalition rule. All Australians will remember the election campaign of 1977, when the coalition's advertising featured a fistful of dollars. But after the election of the coalition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), now Leader of the Opposition, snatched back the tax cuts. What was his excuse? When the current Treasurer (Mr Keating) pointed out that the honourable member for Bennelong had reneged on the coalition's promise to provide tax cuts, the Opposition Leader's response was: `I didn't make the promise'. What a convenient line this was for the Leader of the Opposition to adopt. The honourable member for Bennelong sought absolution. Thankfully, the Australian public has a long memory and still distrusts this Opposition Leader. What was the record of members of the Opposition when they were in government? I would just like to list some of the new taxes they created so that the Australian public can judge the coalition on its record and not its rhetoric. They introduced the bank accounts debit tax; the 2 per cent revenue duty; the 2.5 per cent Medibank levy; the 1978-79 income tax surcharge; excise on off-road distillate; a 33 per cent increase in sales tax rates; increases in excises on tobacco, petrol and beer; new sales taxes on pet food, soft drink bottles, television tubes, safety belts, oils and greases, insecticides, curtains, manchester, construction equipment, and so on and so on. Finally, they introduced the massive $3 billion tax take from the crude oil levy. In other words, the Opposition spent seven years taxing everything that moved and, in some instances, things that did not move. This Government's record, by comparison, is outstanding. When this Government promises a tax cut, it delivers. On 1 November 1984, the tax scales were cut to make the tax system more fair and progressive. Taxpayers with incomes in the range $12,501 to $28,000 received a tax cut of $7.60 per week. This tax cut was not grabbed back, but is now an integral part of the tax reform that continues on 1 December this year, and will conclude with a final instalment on 1 July 1987. For a person on $28,000 this will mean an additional $15.30 per week tax cut. For people on average weekly earnings, savings will be in the vicinity of $10 to $12 per week. For high income earners, the savings will be much more substantial, as the Government moves to wipe out John Howard's 60c in the dollar tax rate so that no one in Australia will pay more than 49c in the dollar to the Government in personal income tax. For someone on $20,000, savings will be $5.64; for someone on $30,000, the savings will be $16.90; for someone on $40,000, savings will be $35.56; and for someone on $50,000, there will be a massive tax saving of $57.56 per week. The honourable member for Gwydir claims, laughingly, that these tax cuts will do damage to the farm and small business sector. This claim is absolute nonsense. Various members of the Opposition, including the Leader of the Opposition and National Party members, have been touting around the country the proposition that Australia should introduce tax reforms similar to those introduced in the United States of America. This is a deception on the part of the Opposition, but it will not fool the people. Once more the Opposition is peddling half truths. The bottom line is that the overall incidence of taxation in the United States is remarkably similar to that in Australia, at around 30 per cent of gross domestic product. It is no good muttering about low marginal tax rates in the United States when the facts of the matter are, first, that the top marginal tax rate is actually 33 per cent, not 28 per cent as claimed by the Opposition, because of the phasing-out of the tax thresholds and personal exemptions. Secondly, the rate does not include compulsory social security levies, which for the average United States taxpayer 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 various States of the United States. Taking all these points into account, individuals on average United States earnings will face an effective marginal tax rate of between 39.7 per cent and 55 per cent depending on which State of the United States they reside in. By comparison, even the highest income earner in Australia will face a marginal tax rate of only 49 per cent. What is more fascinating is that the American tax reform will be financed by a 25 per cent increase in business taxation. In view of the matter of public importance introduced by the honourable member for Gwydir, is this a proposal that the coalition now endorses? The honourable member for Gwydir, as Deputy Leader of the National Party, has obviously introduced this matter of public importance as part of the National Party's overall taxation strategy. We need to ask ourselves how the National Party would perform in government. We can look at the clear example in my State of Queensland, where the National Party currently governs in its own right. I am sure that all members are aware that this will change on 1 November. The electors of Queensland will then have the opportunity to cast their verdict on the scandal-ridden National Party Government, which is led by an increasingly irrelevant and aging premier. Contrary to the popular myth, Queensland, under the National Party Government, is not a low tax State. Any objective analysis of State taxes and fees in Queensland, including such things as rail freight surcharges of $394m, make Queensland, per head of population, the third highest taxing State in Australia. It is also the State with the worst economic record, and the lowest level of services to its people. As the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has previously pointed out, the Queensland National Party has invented a whole new tax-the tax of the hollow log. The hollow log tax particularly hurts the primary producer and the small businessman. The Queensland Government has siphoned off $33.5m from rural assistance funds and run up hollow logs totalling $75m in money that should have been going to assist Queensland farmers and small businessmen. What else does the National Party want? The honourable member for Gwydir, like the Queensland Premier, favours the flat tax system. Under this flat tax proposal, farmers receiving the average farm income, estimated by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, would pay $1,765 per year more in tax than they are currently paying. What are the other taxes which members of the National Party feel are unfair? They say they are opposed to the capital gains tax, but the capital gains tax does not apply to properties acquired prior to 20 September last year. Because the turnover of farm properties is less than that of other assets, farmers are the biggest beneficiaries of that exemption. In reality, farm land values do not increase in real terms over time, so little, if any, capital gains tax would ever be paid by the farmers. Members of the Opposition like to talk about fuel taxes. Of course, they conveniently neglect to inform farmers that the excise does not apply to diesel used on-farm by farmers. This is a most generous tax concession to the rural sector as the farming community is the only group in this country receiving the full exemption. The National Party, as usual, tries to mislead farmers by suggesting that the exemption has changed in some way. There has been no such change. It is common knowledge amongst political observers that the Opposition, when it finally releases its taxation policy, will include some kind of consumption tax. It will be interesting to see whether the National Party is honest with the farming community in advising it of the massive extra burden that farmers and small businesses in country areas will have to bear from such new taxes. It will be interesting, when the Opposition finally does release its policy, to see what it will do in the area of fringe benefits. It is obvious that many farmers are conscious of the need to tax fringe benefits. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore) —by leave-I present the official report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to New Zealand, 1986, and seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr BLANCHARD —The report which has just been tabled is the report of the fourth Australian parliamentary delegation to visit New Zealand since the adoption in 1978 of what has become known as the Nareen agreement. In 1978 Prime Minister Fraser and New Zealand Foreign Minister Talboys agreed that to further Australia-New Zealand relations there should be regular exchanges of parliamentary delegations. Three delegations from the New Zealand Parliament have also visited Australia. The delegation visited New Zealand between 9 June and 19 June this year. I consider that this visit was possibly the most informative and worthwhile of any in which I have participated. The delegation's inspections and discussions were wide ranging. The report recognises that because of time constraints it was not always possible to fully pursue matters of interest. We also acknowledge that some of the matters discussed and the views obtained may not fully reflect attitudes within New Zealand. We feel, however, we gained enough information on a number of issues to draw conclusions and to suggest particular courses of action for various Australian Ministers. From our discussions with primary producer organisations it is clear that Australia and New Zealand have a common interest in overturning the dumping policies of the European Community and the United States. It is also clear that there are many areas where joint marketing approaches could be adopted by the two countries to their benefit. Before our departure we were aware that claims had been made repeatedly in the Press and elsewhere that large numbers of New Zealanders were taking advantage of the lack of immigration controls to abuse Australia's unemployment benefit system. We had the opportunity to discuss this matter with the New Zealand Minister for Social Welfare. The Australian Government has recently taken action in the Budget to overcome this abuse. The delegation, however, requests the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) not only to address the question of abuse but also to provide detailed information to ensure that the Australian Parliament and the community are aware that the vast majority of New Zealand residents in Australia do not take improper advantage of the Australian welfare system. New Zealand officials advised the delegation that there is no proposal to develop a facility such as the Australian Institute of Sport. These officials suggested that better access to the Australian Institute of Sport should be given to New Zealanders. The delegation believes that this approach could work to the mutual advantage of both Australia and New Zealand. While Australia would be providing the facilities for New Zealand athletes, New Zealand could respond by making coaches available to the Institute. As Chairman of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, I was pleased that we were able to conduct extensive discussions and inspections relating to Maori affairs. The problems faced by the Maori people are very similar to those faced by the Australian Aboriginal. The New Zealand Government has undertaken extensive programs to address the economic and social imbalance which exists and to ensure that the rich Maori culture which we observed is preserved and fostered. The Government is pursuing policies to ensure that New Zealand develops as a harmonious multicultural society. Our discussions with the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence indicate that New Zealand values its relations with Australia. Whatever problems exist with ANZUS it is clear that the Government wishes its relationship with Australia to be maintained and strengthened. It is clear that New Zealand places a considerable importance on these parliamentary exchanges. We, too, believe that these exchanges are valuable and lead to a strengthening of the already close relations between our two countries. We believe the exchanges should continue as they allow parliamentarians from all parties in both New Zealand and Australia to gain first hand knowledge of the other country and to obtain a clearer understanding of current issues. Our visit was successful because of the assistance given and the hospitality of those involved in the delegation's program. I would particularly thank the New Zealand Prime Minister, his Ministers and officers for making time available to speak to the members. We also thank the Speaker of the New Zealand House of Representatives and members and staff of the House for making us feel so welcome when we visited. Our escort officers from the New Zealand departments of Internal Affairs and Foreign Affairs also deserve special mention. His Excellency Mr Graham Ansell, New Zealand High Commissioner to Australia, and his staff provided valuable assistance prior to the delegation's departure. The delegation also greatly appreciates the friendliness of the New Zealanders who welcomed us so warmly to their businesses, farms and homes. I particularly thank His Excellency the Hon. Les Johnson, Australian High Commissioner to New Zealand, and his staff. I make the comment that Australia is well served by our mission in New Zealand and it is obvious that the High Commissioner is held in very high regard by New Zealand Ministers, Parliamentarians and officials. Finally I pay tribute to the deputy leader of the delegation, the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) whose fine singing voice helped strengthen the entente cordiale. Unfortunately, he could not be here this afternoon and apologises for his absence. I would also like to thank both the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) and the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh) for their co-operation and helpful advice on the trip. They were all good ambassadors for Australia. The delegation's role was made so much easier by the diligence and perseverance of the Secretary to the delegation, Mr John Cummins, and I know that all members of the delegation share that view. I commend the report to the House. Mr McVEIGH(Groom) —by leave-The closer economic relations agreement is very important to New Zealand and probably not quite as important to Australia, but I hope that over the years we have an acceptance of the aims and spirit of CER in this country, just as the New Zealanders do. It is appropriate to remind Australians that, prior to the implementation of CER on 1 January 1983, 80 per cent of trade across the Tasman was tariff free and 90 per cent was free of quantitative import restrictions and quotas. The agreement will be reviewed in 1988. The agreement is working. There is a genuine wish by New Zealanders and Australians to have ongoing discussions about matters that are causing concern at the moment and likely to cause concern in the future. There is a willingness to have discussions on an industry by industry basis. When that review comes around in 1988, provided that spirit of genuine goodwill and co-operation is still present, we will have a wider base for primary industry and manufacturing industry. Of course, our countries have a close relation- ship. Anzac Day is a very important day in the history of New Zealand and of Australia. It is interesting to note that New Zealand has many internal problems similar to ours. For instance, it is cheaper to ship wheat from Melbourne to Singapore than it is to take it across the strait to Tasmania. In our discussions, we were similarly told that it is cheaper to ship goods from the North Island of New Zealand to Sydney or Melbourne and thence to the South Island than it is to ship them directly to the South Island. So there are a great deal of similar problems. Of course, there is a spirit of friendly rivalry. The leader of our delegation will recall how, when we visited the factory where the New Zealand challenge boat for the America's Cup was built, the New Zealanders indicated that they hoped that they would beat the Australians. I am not an expert on sailing but, on account of our close association with New Zealand, if in the dim distant future some country should happen to beat us, I would prefer that it be New Zealand. It is interesting to note too that we beat them in rugby. That occurred after our trip over there. We were amazed even at watching reserve grade or under-age games, which we did at Queenstown on a fairly inclement day. The traditional power of the forward play of the All Blacks was absorbed even by the youngest players. These were very interesting things to learn about. I join with the leader of the delegation in extending thanks to our guides from New Zealand, Mr Blair, Mr Greenland and Mr Ward. They introduced us to many people. The overriding view that I came away with was of a genuine interest in partnership with Australians in exploring trade opportunities in the South Pacific and Pacific basin area. As an Australian parliamentarian, probably the highlight of the trip was to note the very high respect-I repeat very high respect-in which our High Commissioner, the Honourable Les Johnson, is held by the New Zealanders. I say that in a very warm spirit of generosity and praise for a job exceptionally well done. Irrespective of any personal views that people may have, I believe, having seen the position of esteem in which he is held in New Zealand-he is very widely known and has the ability to open doors and arrange deputations-that there is a role in diplomatic circles for people who may be termed politicians, professional or retired. Les Johnson is a credit to the Australian diplomatic service. As an Australian and as a fellow parliamentarian of his era, although we were from different parties, I was very proud to note the esteem in which he is held. To my mind, for professionals in the diplomatic service, Les Johnson has set almost impossible high standards for them to follow. On that note, I conclude by giving warm congratulations to the leader of the delegation, the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard). His very friendly, warm and generous approach welded together the four parliamentarians from different parties. He was always only too willing to allow discussions to continue when one or other member of the party was interested in pursuing a particular point of view. At all times he ensured that all of us were treated as equals. To Allen, I express my deep appreciation for a job very well done indeed. He was very generous in his praise of the deputy leader of the delegation, the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), who, of course, in his inimitable way, was mostly the life of the party. He had a very close association with the New Zealanders because for some unknown reason-this permeated all of our discussions-they would always ask: `Who is the Tasmanian?' They seemed to think that because he is from Tasmania, he is almost half a New Zealander. The honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) contributed in a very meaningful and significant way to the breadth and width of the discussions. He had interests in particular areas which I certainly did not know much about. I could sit back and listen to him pursue a line of questioning and then have the opportunity quietly over a meal to pursue those matters further with him. That certainly gave me a greater insight into matters to which I had had no exposure. I also want to include the grateful thanks of the party to John Cummins, the Secretary of the delegation, who made a great success of his job for the simple reason that he did the small things very well indeed, secure in the knowledge that the big things would automatically be done well. My final comment is a personal one. I give my thanks to the wives of all members of the delegation for their friendship and spirit of warm generosity shown to my wife. She would like that to be expressed to the wives of the members of the delegation. It is with pride on her behalf that I have recorded in Hansard her appreciation of their friendship over that period. Debate resumed. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(4.07) —In the brief time left to me in this debate today, I would like to summarise the Opposition's views on the Social Security Amendment (Reciprocity with Italy) Bill 1986 and to express our concern at some of the directions that the Government has gone off in in negotiating this agreement with Italy. Firstly, I reiterate that the agreement, the Bill and previous amendments to the Social Security Act arose as a result of an initiative announced by a former coalition Minister for Social Security, the Hon. Fred Chaney, in 1982. The initiative is designed to ensure that Australia has a working proportional portability relationship with countries to ensure that Australians who have their origins in those countries have some sort of retirement income and social welfare entitlement in those countries, should they choose to return to their country of origin after a period of residence in Australia. My concern is that, although the Government has pursued the initiative of the coalition and adhered in principle to the philosophy of that initiative and to the underlying principles announced by Senator Chaney when he elaborated that proposal back in 1982, the detailed negotiations on those issues seem to have gone wrong. To put it quite simply, they have gone off at a tangent. They have failed to pay attention to the details. Unfortunately, the Government has been less than frank with the Australian people and with many members of the ethnic communities in Australia who have a vital and real interest in this legislation because they are likely to be affected directly by it. In speaking to this initiative in the House and in other places the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) has implied that there will be no losers; that all Australians will gain and no one will be worse off. He has even convinced the members of the Australian Labor Party that that will be the case. The honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling), in speaking to this legislation, said that there will be no losers; that everybody will be a winner. I will take a moment to explain how inaccurate is that perception that Government members are seeking to create. Under the provisions of this agreement, an unknown number of Italian Australian pensioners could lose part or all of their entitlement to an Australian pension. For example, if a man arrived in Australia on 7 May 1985 and turns 65 years of age on 2 January 1996, he would receive only 43 per cent of an Australian pension payment if he left Australia to return to a country with which Australia has a reciprocal agreement, which in this case is Italy. If, however, that person turns 65 on 31 December 1995, that is a day before the trigger for the introduction of this agreement, two days ahead of the hypothetical birthday, he would receive 100 per cent of the Australian age pension, subject of course to the assets test. That means that because of the arbitrary incidence of a two-day time lag-that is, the difference in his birth date of two days 48 hours-he stands to drop 57 per cent of his entitlement to an Australian pension. To my mind, and to the minds of all Opposition members, it seems that some Australians will lose. Obviously there are circumstances where Australians who originate from overseas and who intend to return to a country where we have a proportional pension agreement will stand to lose entitlement compared with other Australians who choose to stay in this country. The Government should explain that to the ethnic communities and be fully frank about the consequences. There is also the consequence of this agreement applying to Australians who originate from, say, Greece and who work in Australia for a time, and then go to Italy or to another country with which we will eventually have a reciprocal agreement on pensions and social security. Their entitlement may be reduced, or they may have no entitlement other than a proportional Australian entitlement because they have not been a resident of that third country and earned an entitlement by either residence or contribution over a period. As the number of agreements is extended to countries throughout the world, this problem will trap more and more Australians whose country of birth is not Australia. It is a growing concern among ethnic communities throughout Australia. The other matter that arises as a consequence of these reciprocal agreements is how the Australian social security system requirements will be enforced overseas. We have been talking predominantly about the age pension. That pension under the Hawke Labor Government is subject to both the income and assets tests. I ask the Minister to explain in detail how he intends to enforce on pensioners who are claiming that pension overseas both tests with the same degree of diligence and rigor as are enforced on Australian pensioners. I remind the House that it is the Government's intention to remove the two Australian based officers from the London office of the Department of Social Security and repatriate them to Australia. That office has responsibility for administering some $87m of social security payments overseas. We have two at present plus a local staff. We are withdrawing the two Australians. How are they to be expected to enforce the assets test, the income test and all the other requirements of the Social Security Act in respect of benefits paid overseas when in Australia it takes some 1,500 officers to enforce the assets test alone, and many thousands of officers within the Department to administer and enforce the requirements of the Australian social security system? Obviously we shall see the development of a double standard in enforcement of entitlements and obligations under the Social Security Act. Before this debate was resumed, the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard) commented on his recent delegation to New Zealand. He also commented on the concern on both sides of the Tasman as to abuse of the Australian social security system by New Zealand nationals. He was at pains to stress, and I agree with him, that not all New Zealand nationals resident in Australia at a point of time manipulate our system, but he acknowledged, and brought to this House the acknowledgment of the New Zealand Government, that there were problems with the system. I contrast that acknowledgment with the initial statements made by the Minister for Social Security that there was no problem with the agreement with New Zealand. Mr Howe —That is a lie. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The Minister will withdraw. Mr Howe —That is a very misleading statement. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister will withdraw. Mr Howe —I withdraw. Mr BLUNT —At a later time today I shall seek to apprise the House of statements made by the Minister in Press releases. I am concerned that, while this Government is pursuing the negotiation of reciprocal social security agreements with foreign governments, it is not attaching sufficient priority to negotiating reciprocal agreements with countries with which Australia has close and growing economic ties, close population links and close population-migratory trends. There is a need to negotiate an effective reciprocal agreement with New Zealand that covers both the portability and the eligibility for social welfare in both countries. As I mentioned previously in this debate, priority should also be given to negotiating a similar agreement with the United Kingdom because of Australia's historical links and the numbers of people from the United Kingdom who are now settling in Australia. There is broad bipartisan support for the general thrust of this agreement. We are concerned, however, at the direction the Government is taking and with the fact that the Government had been less than frank as to the consequences of its proposals for some members of the Australian community. It is incumbent upon the Minister in his concluding remarks to explain what action he intends to take fully to acquaint those members of the Australian community with the potential implications of this agreement for their entitlements should they remain in Australia, return to their country of origin, or go to a third country. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler)(4.16) —The House is discussing the Social Security Amendment (Reciprocity with Italy) Bill 1986, and it is interesting that we have just heard the usual number of sweeping statements from the Opposition spokesman on social security, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt). One wonders what sort of position the country would be in if the honourable member were ever to administer the social security legislation. Obviously the honourable member either has not read the Bill or has not understood the thrust of a number of other areas of the present social security legislation. One can always construct examples and models of Italians who come to live in Australia for 15 years and then decide to go to live in Iceland. It is then said that such a person may not be eligible under this reciprocity arrangement. Those kinds of examples are nonsense, as I shall demonstrate later in my remarks. The remark that showed the ignorance of the honourable member for Richmond of the Social Security Act was displayed a few moments ago when he took the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) to task in respect of some person who may have left the country a day or two short of meeting the eligibility criteria and who was thus found to be ineligible. If the honour- able member understood the present Social Security Act, he would know that that was a fact now. If a person leaves Australia-a male before his sixty-fifth birthday or a woman before her sixtieth birthday-he or she would not be eligible to take any pension overseas. A person is only eligible once he or she has reached that birthday here in Australia. The honourable member said that there was a loophole in the legislation, but I remind him that it already exists. This Bill attempts to overcome precisely those problems. In the past one experienced the ludicrous state of affairs that some people spent most of their working lives in Australia, left the country before their sixtieth or sixty-fifth birthday and were not eligible for social security benefits here or in their country of origin. One of the main reasons for these reciprocity agreements is to overcome a problem which the honourable member for Richmond, in his ignorance, did not realise exists in Australia at present. Reciprocal social security agreements are based on principles which are in line with a number of international practices. As the Minister outlined in his second reading speech, those principles are: Shared responsibility, where each party to the agreement will contribute to a person's total social security coverage; equality of treatment, which provides that the residents and citizens of both countries will be given equal access to each other's social security laws; totalisation, which ensures that periods of residence and/or contributions in both countries will be added together to give people the minimum period of residence or contributions required to qualify for a pension from either or both countries. That was a matter which the honourable member for Richmond seemed to think was not contained in this legislation.The other principle was the pro rata basis, which ensures that the total amount of pensions to be paid by each country to people residing in the other will be based either on the length of a person's residence or contributions. Those four points would ensure that any agreement into which Australia entered would benefit Australia, people who are sometimes residents of Australia and any other country with which we are dealing. I draw the attention of the House to the point about the pro rata basis, because in the past that has been a major stumbling block to carrying out proposals for a reciprocal agreement. Most nations which have social security arrangements-and in the main these tend to be developed countries, especially European nations-have social security and pension systems based on contributions, not on a period of residence in that country. As everyone knows, in Australia we have a universal age pension based on a minimum period of residence of 10 years, which is payable when a male reaches 65 or a female reaches 60. We also have other types of pensions in various categories. Australia is unique in the world in that we have a non-contributory type of social security system. Most other developed countries have systems that are based on contributions and it is easy to marry them up. Many people in Australia think that the tax system somehow entitles them automatically to a pension, but our system is not based on any automatic entitlement. That has caused some misapprehensions on the part of immigrants who have come from systems where they have contributed through either a percentage of their wages or a surcharge on their taxes and thus are entitled to a pension, no matter what their economic circumstances might be. This particular agreement is the outcome of long and careful negotiations instituted by the Minister for Social Security. He held extensive consultations and was involved in some 50 meetings with migrant community groups throughout Australia before the Government's position was settled. Despite the difficulties and what sometimes seemed like insurmountable opposition from certain areas of the ethnic community, the Minister persisted. I must pay tribute to him because when his proposals were explained and then the misinformation that was being put around, in some cases by people who were perhaps just a bit fearful that they might lose rights that they already had, was corrected, the agreement had widespread acceptance. It is quite wrong for the Opposition spokesman, the honourable member for Richmond, to try to suggest that there will be losers in this type of program. There will not be. This type of misinformation, which the Opposition put around during the negotiation period, caused a great deal of uncertainty in many sectors of the ethnic community in Australia. The Minister was also advised in the negotiations by a group of five people, including Italian Australians, on the consultative process and the policy issues involved. When the initial discussions were being held between the Minister and various ethnic groups, I was privileged to be a member of a committee from the Parliamentary Labor Party which participated in the consultation process. As a result of that process, the Social Security (Proportional Portability of Pensions) Amendment Act 1986 was passed, which enabled the principle of pro rata basis to be adopted in Australia. Although proportional portability provided a basis for cost sharing agreements, it is part of Australia's domestic law and therefore it does not give the Minister carte blanche to enter into agreements. That is very sensible because as part of the arrangement in the consultation process undertakings were given to people that no agreements would be entered into unless they were done by legislation and until there was widespread discussion. This Government is about ensuring that those people who have an interest-financial or any other sort-in this type of legislation will be taken account of and discussions will be held with them prior to the Government entering into any agreements with other countries. The Bill before us refers specifically to the reciprocal agreement signed with Italy on 23 April this year. This will be the forerunner of a number of other agreements which will be negotiated and for which the Australian-Italian agreement will provide the basic principles and blueprint for action. I must stress again that other agreements may have to be modified. This agreement will provide the framework for the process, but the provisions are not set in concrete. Some 18 other countries have already indicated an interest in negotiating cost sharing agreements with Australia. I would have thought that the Opposition spokesman would have known that when he gave the example of the Greek who went to live in Italy after retiring, having lived in Australia for a number of years. The Greek Government may want to enter into an agreement with Australia, and I have no doubt that the Italian and Greek governments are probably considering arrangements with each other. Once that world wide web of agreements is reached, it will be for the benefit of everybody who is a resident of Australia. The final form of any future agreement will depend to some extent on the particular country's social security scheme and how our scheme can be aligned with it in order to obtain suitable reciprocity. Most importantly, I wish to stress-and I think this should be stressed over and over again-that no agreement will be negotiated unless there is support from the relevant ethnic community in Australia. The Government's view is that these things will benefit those people who are residents and citizens here and they will always be taken into account when the decisions are being made. One of the encouraging things about reciprocal agreements, be they on social security or the recently announced reciprocal health care agreements, is that we are moving closer to the day when people will be able to move freely from one country to another over their lifetimes without jeopardising their entitlement to protection against the contingencies of life. Reciprocal agreements also provide a suitable mechanism to ensure that each country to which a migrant has contributed shares responsibility for social security coverage. The reciprocal agreement between Australia and Italy specifically addresses the social security rights of those who have resided in Australia and cannot claim Australian pension entitlements because they now reside in Italy; those who ceased contributing to the Italian social security scheme when they migrated to Australia and who now cannot claim Italian pension entitlement; and those from Italy who are now in Australia but do not have access to Australian pensions because they have not resided here long enough. That qualification period is usually 10 years. In the long run, when we have arrangements with other countries, a number of people in my electorate, which has a very high immigrant content, will be a lot happier. I often have cases where a person has come to Australia under the Government's arrangements for allowing parents of citizens to migrate here pretty well without any qualifications. Many of those people find that after they arrive their children's circumstances change and the children, who may have young families of their own, are not able to look after their parents as well as they might have when they first assisted them to migrate. Because those people have not lived in Australia for 10 years, they are not entitled to an Australian pension. If they are in dire circumstances, they may be able to obtain a special benefit from the Department of Social Security, but it has always struck me as absurd that the country in which they spent their lives and contributed to the economic progress-usually a developed country-could not provide them with a pension here in Australia. Until this agreement was signed the only country that provided any social security assistance to its nationals who migrated to Australia was Britain. This applies also to a lesser extent to New Zealand. Britons who lived in Australia were able to receive a pension here. But Italians, Greeks and others who had contributed to their own country's social security scheme found, when they came to Australia, that they were not able to receive a pension from their country of origin. Indeed, some Australians who had lived here for many years-in some instances 30 or 40 years-but went to a third country or returned to their country of origin before their sixty-fifth birthday if they were male or their sixtieth birthday if they were female were not entitled to claim an Australian pension to take with them. That occurred even though they had contributed to the economic growth of Australia over many years. This gave rise to a ridiculous situation in which a number of people had to return here for their birthday and make sure they were here the day before and the day after so that they could claim a pension and take it overseas with them. The amount of pension which will be paid by Australia will be based on actual residency during working life. Under the Italian scheme, Italy will calculate its pension on actual contributions. More people in Australia will be entitled to money from Italy than people living in Italy will be entitled to money from Australia. That is the important thing, because many people have suggested that this legislation would result in a massive outflow of cash from Australia. It is quite the reverse. In fact, some 17,000 people resident in Australia of Italian origin will be entitled to an Italian pension and only 3,000 people who were Italian residents living in Australia and who went back to Italy will be entitled to a pension from Australia. The balance of this is very much in Australia's favour. This agreement can be seen to be very good for Australia and for people who live in Australia. Despite the myths to the contrary, some of which were perpetuated in this House today by the Opposition spokesman, the honourable member for Richmond, the vast majority of people who migrate to Australia remain in Australia. They do not retire to their country of birth and live the lives of kings on an Australian pension, as some people would like us to believe. The reason that most of those people come to Australia is that they intend to stay here for good. When this agreement is finalised, 17,000 people in Australia will be entitled to an Italian pension and only 3,000 people in Italy will be entitled to an Australian pension. Those figures alone suggest that people who come to Australia from other shores tend to stay here. There are close to 300,000 Italian born people in Australia. Estimates are that in the first year of operation of the agreement Australia will outlay about $4.6m on payments, while it will cost the Italian Government about $38.3m. During the first three financial years of operation of the agreement, between 1987 and 1990, it is estimated that there will be a net inflow to Australia of $109.6m. In the same period the cost of the agreement is estimated at $16.5m to the Australian Government. Even that $16.5m will be offset by an estimated tax revenue of $16.7m, which will give Australia a net saving of $200,000. This measure will be not only of benefit to the Australian people but also of advantage in a small way to the Australian exchequer. The implementation date for the agreement with Italy is targeted for next year. Since 1952 Italy has been pressing Australia for a reciprocity agreement. Italy has a network of agreements designed to protect the social security rights of emigrant workers. The absence of a comprehensive agreement with Australia represented a significant gap in that network. The Italian-Australian community has been campaigning for an agreement for some years and has made strong representations to the Italian Government to implement the treaty without delay. Australia introduced portability of pensions in 1973 and the introduction of proportional portability from 1 July this year further rationalised the portability concept. The agreement with Italy will cover people who move between Australia and Italy, enabling them to qualify for a number of pension benefits, including the Australian age, invalid, widows', wives' and double orphans' pensions. The Italian benefits include old age, seniority, anticipated pensions and a number of invalidity and unemployment allowances. The proportion of a pension payable by Australia to a pensioner living in Italy will be calculated according to how long he or she spent in Australia during the working age years. If those years are fewer than 25, the pension he or she will receive from Australia will be calculated on the basis of a proportion of an income or assets tested pension represented by the number of years spent in Australia over 25 years. Someone who lives in Australia and claims an Australian pension under the agreement will, through the combination of the Italian and Australian pensions, get a total payment which will equal the amount that any other Australian pensioner will get. No person will be disadvantaged by the agreement. Claimants for pensions will be able to apply for Australian benefits while living in Italy and they will continue to apply for Italian benefits while resident in Australia. A number of issues were the subject of negotiation. It was difficult to obtain reciprocity on a benefit to benefit basis due to the basic differences between the Australian and Italian systems, so the governments of Australia and Italy took a global approach. The Italians protested at Australia's initial proposal of a 40-year working life period and had a fundamental difficulty with Australia's different bases for the rates of calculation inside and outside Australia. The Italian-Australian community pressed strongly for a reduction in the Australian working life proposal and, after consultations, 25 years was finally agreed upon. Reaching agreement on appropriate income testing of Australian agreement pensions, given the absence of general income testing by the Italians, was a long process. Solutions reached included special income testing arrangements in exchange for the inclusion of other Italian benefits in the agreement. The Minister for Social Security is to be congratulated on this legislation. I have only one suggestion to make. I noted in today's Australian that the Japanese Ministry for International Trade and Industry, better known for its promotion of Japanese goods and services in overseas markets, has proposed a scheme known as the Silver Columbus scheme to export pensioners. The proposal is to set up retirement villages of about 1,000 people in overseas countries. Given that proposal, I suggest that the Minister should urgently consider reaching an agreement with Japan. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(4.36) —I congratulate the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) on his comments, few of which I disagreed with. For the first time I heard some figures presented by a member on the Government side; the cost benefits to Australia have not been forthcoming from the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe). I have seen no indication of cost benefits in this agreement or in projections for other agreements which are imminent, so those figures are very much appreciated by the House, but there has been some dereliction on the part of the Minister. My view that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has always been a grandstander has been reinforced. It does not matter whether it is attendance at a sporting event or categorical statements on income tax, capital gains tax, superannuation tax or whatever; that is his character. I refer the House to statements made by the Prime Minister while he was in Italy for the signing of this agreement with the Italian Social Security Department. The Prime Minister was reported in the Canberra Times of 25 April 1986 to have said: This agreement brings us closer together and enables people who have moved their country of residence to receive better rewards for a lifetime of work. Superficially that sounds fine, but let us analyse what is happening, because there are some difficult areas in this legislation which have not been noted by the Government nor expressed to community groups. The community groups are very concerned because they are starting to find, as with the fringe benefits tax, other areas about which they have not been told things that they should have been told. If we search the fine print of speeches and Press releases, we find tucked away in half a dozen words an inference-nothing more than that. It is not appropriate for the Minister or the Government to seek to build an expectation or a perception which is larger than life and larger than reality. That has happened. All the Prime Minister's statements need to be put under a microscope, because the more flamboyant and categoric the statement, the more likely it is to be misleading. In this instance the statement sounds fine, but let us analyse it because the conclusion one must draw is that the Prime Minister is a grandstander. It is necessary for us to examine precisely how the proportional portability legislation will work. I have before me a table from the Department of Social Security which I wish to examine as to who is eligible for a portable pension and who is not. A person who was a pensioner prior to 1 July 1986 will not be affected by this legislation in any way. People who are not currently pensioners but were residents or absent residents on 8 May 1985, or people who were invalided or widowed, de jure in Australia will not be affected by this legislation. It is simple and compassionate. If a person loses his spouse or is invalided in Australia, he loses nothing and the legislation does not affect him. However, if the person is a resident or an absent resident on 8 May 1985, he is not affected by the legislation if he becomes a pensioner after 1 July 1986 and leaves Australia before 1 January 1996 or if he becomes a pensioner after 1 July 1986 and leaves Australia after 1 January 1996 for a non-agreement country. That is a very easily read statement, but it is difficult to explain unless one can see the chart. It really means that a person who goes back to a non-agreement country after 1996 takes his full pension with him, but if he goes back to an agreement country he gets a proportional pension. I think we need to look at how many people may be affected. The way in which one can make that assessment is to look at the number of people who have come in within the 14 years prior to the commencement date, which is a total of 24 years and which is the legal working life under this legislation. If we look at the numbers of people who have come in within that period, we find that from 1971 to 1985 there were 25,900 Italians, 24,900 Greeks, 11,400-odd people from Malta and 24,964 from West Germany. The number of immigrants to Australia during that period from all the countries with which the Government has indicated it will negotiate agreements totals 187,900. Those are the figures that I have been given, and I think they would be fairly close to reality. We have a bulk of people who have arrived here after 1971 and who will be affected by the legislation, which begins, in effect, in 1985. If those people stay for the 10-year period, which is the gap that the Minister has put into the legislation, and then return to their countries of origin, they are eligible for only part pensions, if they have been in Australia for less than 25 years and if they go to a country with which we have an agreement. I tried to do a calculation on the returns, and I found that on average over the last five or six years about 14 per cent of people who come to Australia return to their countries of origin. Some of them go back very soon after arriving in Australia-they find that they do not like it here-and they return for a number of reasons. The Minister has not said, nor can I gather, the likely number of people. Fourteen per cent of the 187,000 who may be affected is roughly 26,000 people. The wide open statement which was made by the Prime Minister and which was supported by the Minister, that no one will be worse off and that everybody will be fine, is not true. People who will have given between 10 and 25 years of their working lives to Australia, compared with their Australian colleagues, will be placed in a worse position. Those are people who will retire after 1996. Mr Howe —Why worse? Mr CADMAN —Because they will have only a part pension. Mr Lowe-They will get a pension from Italy. Mr CADMAN —They will get a pension from Italy-they will have the buildup process from Italy-but a person who goes back to a non-agreement country, on the 10-years residency process, will be entitled to a full pension. People are concerned that it is likely that they will get less than the expected pension. They have given fair working lives to Australia; they were here prior to the introduction of this legislation; and they had a reasonable expectation. I am not objecting to the process that the Government has used; I am objecting to the lack of comment and openness in some of the statements that have been made by the Government. Complete frankness about people in these circumstances will draw a ready and supportive response because the people in these circumstances are good Aussies; they understand basically why the Government is doing it; and they are supportive of the Australian way of life and Australian ideals. I feel that the Government could have been a little more frank. It has taken me weeks and weeks to work out what the Government is doing, sometimes through lack of communication, sometimes because departmental officers have been busy and partly because of misleading rumours that run rife in ethnic communities where people are not properly informed. Those things ought to be, but have not been, safeguarded against. The Minister, in his Press release of 7 November 1985, said: Many in Australia will get extra payments from overseas pensions systems. None will be worse off . . . I challenge that because I believe that those returning in the circumstances that I have outlined will receive less than a full Australian pension. The Minister also said: These new arrangements-worked out after extensive consultations with all major communities in every State-will bring major benefits to many people both in Australia and overseas. They will bring benefits to some, but not to all, in the future, as the carte-blanche statement seems to indicate. I would go so far as to say that in this instance there are substantial unintended consequences, to quote the words of the Prime Minister in the last few days. I think the Minister and the Department ought to come forward and state readily and openly that there will be circumstances that affect people. If one reads the Minister's second reading speech, one will see tucked away in part of one sentence: After that date,-- that is, 1 January 1996-- only those who go to a country with whom Australia has a reciprocal agreement will be affected. That is the only mention that the Minister makes of that circumstance in his speech. On the next page of his speech are bald statements such as: Honourable members will be aware that the Social Security Act provides that certain pensioners in Australia can continue to receive their pensions if they go overseas. The new provisions do not alter these basic provisions. That is misleading for an expectant recipient of a pension under normal circumstances. People expect to be treated as they have been treated traditionally in Australia, with fairness and openness. To find some little hook later in the event is of concern to anybody who has made a major contribution to bring his family up in Australia, and has paid taxes and has worked hard for the benefit of, and in helping to build, this nation. I refer to the House to the inadequate processes that have been used in establishing this. It was only within the second reading speech of the Minister that I was able to discern the formality of this process. I enunciate to the House that the first step in the process is a detailed exchange of information between the countries affected, including written material and face to face meetings, to enable both countries' officials to understand each other's social security systems. The second step is consultation with communities in Australia which are likely to be affected by an agreement. The third step is negotiation of the terms of an agreement, taking into account community views, that is, the tight negotiations between Australian officials and those of overseas countries. The fourth point is the ratification and implementation of the legislation. In seeing it for the first time, it is not a bad process and I could not think of many ways in which to improve it, but it has not been implemented in the way it should have been. There were all the wheel wobbles at first when the Minister made these wide statements about working lives of 35 or 40 years. The community groups around Australia-the Italians, Greeks and everybody else-said: `Hey, wait a minute. Come and talk to us'. The Minister was dragged with some unwillingness to talk to people who were gravely concerned about those initial statements. He set up a consultative process. The Opposition was never involved in any consultation, but apparently the consultative process satisfied the Minister at the time. The current state of play suggests, however, that there are a few likely difficulties. Papers have been exchanged with Greece and it is likely that there will be a visit by representatives of the Greek department of social security in December, and then consultations with the community will start. That is fine, but the Greek community should know that and know it in advance. I take it that it does. There have been no discussions with the Maltese people in Australia and I understand that there have been no discussions with the Maltese Government. There have, however, been exchanges of information and some tentative exchanges with the community. I will come back to that. We have an interim patch-up arrangement, as I call it, with New Zealand pending proper renegotiation. The Minister said in his Press release that he was renegotiating with New Zealand, and I draw his attention to the Press release of 4 November 1985, which contains a joint statement by the Minister and the New Zealand Minister for social security. The Press release reads: The Minister said that the reciprocal social security agreement between Australia and New Zealand was being renegotiated. Mr Howe —My problem was that I had told the shadow Minister months before that the agreement was being renegotiated and that it would go to the question of unemployment benefit and the matters about which he had been concerned. Mr CADMAN —That is fine, but when there is part renegotiation the expectation is that the whole job will be done. I think that my description of a patch-up arrangement is apt. Such an arrangement is not what the Opposition was expecting, and that has been made obvious from the exchange that took place earlier. It may be up to three years before we get things fixed up with the New Zealand Government-who knows? There are uncertainties about the United Kingdom and real difficulties on which I shall not dwell. Further discussions with West Germany and Austria will take place in late November or December. Discussions with Yugoslavia have started. I come back to the Maltese situation. There has been a protest meeting of the Maltese community in Sydney because it is distressed about some discrimination. There has not been proper consultation yet. The Maltese community is one of the most structured and well informed in Australia. All Maltese community groups in Victoria and New South Wales belong to a council of the relevant State. There is a Maltese community council of New South Wales and of Victoria. Both councils have talked together and have nominated a group to consult the Government. Consultation has not taken place in the proper way and there is real concern. It is essential to use the proper channels of any community. We should not doubt people's ability or hurt their feelings by avoiding what they would regard as the correct processes of consultation. I hope that some of the difficulties that have already been experienced by the Maltese community can be overcome. I think that the Government is moving in the right direction. There has been confusion and there have been statements that have sought to placate concern. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) never helps when a position is delicate. He paints the big picture and his attitude is: `She'll be right, Bob'. Things are not right, however, because the fine and detailed work has not been done. We have seen that with capital gains tax and we have seen it with this issue as well. It will be some time before the agreements are properly in place and we hope that the negotiations and discussions will continue satisfactorily. I should like to see the wording of all documentation and the information flowing to community groups to be simple in form and non-bureaucratic. I have had difficulties understanding what the Government has been doing and I know what community groups have felt about the information that they have received. I ask the Minister to try to achieve the proper expression of normal English. It is bad enough if English is not one's first language, but if it is and it cannot be understood, there are particular difficulties. I do not think that the Minister has been to see Scoop. Scoop knows the people to whom the Minister should talk. He knows also how to express himself when talking to groups. There should be consultation that involves the Department. The honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) is a great representative of many groups that have come to Australia, and particularly of the Maltese community. I know that he endorses what I am saying. I cannot find any reference to assets tests. I do not know how they will be carried out 10 years later when someone is living in Italy and has bought up half the countryside around his home village. It seems that there is nothing for the Italian Government to do to comply with this procedure. That is something that does not feature in the agreement. How will the tests be conducted? Will we send a tax officer to knock on the door to ascertain what someone possesses 10 years later? If that is done, there might not be a good reception in some parts of the world. People might not take very kindly to Australia applying its assets test laws on foreign soil 10, 15 or 20 years later. Mr Nehl —We do not take kindly to their being applied here. Mr CADMAN —So I understand. I thank the honourable member for his intervention. He is an effective member. Cost effectiveness has not been spelt out and communication has been poor. The big claim has been too big and that has caused real concern in some sections of the community, particularly the Italian community. As time passes I hope that the Minister will be able to rectify some of the problems to which I am referring in the way in which the Government is to endeavour to rectify all the inadequacies of the fringe benefit tax. A change of government would solve so many of these problems. If the Minister listens to us, it will help- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr JENKINS(Scullin)(4.56) —The Social Security Amendment (Reciprocity with Italy) Bill brings nearer to completion what has been quite a lengthy procedure. Discussions for an Australia-Italy agreement have been proceeding intermittently since 1952. Formal negotiations for a cost-sharing agreement commenced in 1983 and the agreement was signed in Rome on 23 April 1986. It is hoped that implementation will be in mid-1987. It is a measure which has in principle attracted a great amount of bipartisan support in this place. The Bill implements the cost-sharing reciprocal agreement with Italy that was entered into on 23 April. It also makes minor amendments to proportional portability legislation. In May 1985, when announcing the Government's decision to sign a reciprocal social security agreement with Italy, the Minister recorded his belief that the agreement would bring many benefits for Italians residing in Australia and Australians residing in Italy. Of course, the former constitutes a significant component of our population. In the period 1945 to 1982 more than 446,000 Italians have come to Australia as permanent settlers. As revealed by the 1981 census in my home State of Victoria, people of Italian birth constituted 3 per cent of the total population. On the basis of the same census in my electorate of Scullin, there were more than 11,700 residents of Italian birth, over 10,000 of whom had resided in Australia for longer than five years, and over 50 per cent of these were in the 40-plus age group. The legislation comes at a time when the importance of the contributions of our extensive Italian community is fully evident. It has come at a time when the Spoleto Festival of Three Worlds has just finished entertaining the people of Melbourne. This international arts festival originated 27 years ago in Spoleto, Italy. This legislation has come in the year when patrons of the Royal Melbourne Agricultural Show have enjoyed extensive exhibitions from Italy in its capacity as a guest nation. The show's theme, `Italy on Show at the Show', recognised the contribution that Italians have made to Australian culture. The Italian theme certainly added some spice to a great Victorian institution. The Bill has also come at a time when the Brownlow Medal, the highest honour in Australia's great game, Victorian Football League, has been awarded to a son of Italy, Robert Dipierdomenico. I might add that the Minister for Social Security, being a staunch Hawthorn supporter, should be pleased with that. As I mentioned earlier, over 50 per cent of the large Italian population in my electorate is in the 40-plus age group. This is one of the groups that will benefit from the Bill. Many of those Italian Australians have been residents in Australia for a long period. It is worth recalling that their experiences have often been difficult. In the immediate post-war years, many new immigrants faced hardship, exploitation and prejudice. In leading for the Opposition, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), in a rather condescending manner, referred to the Whitlam Government's implementation of the portability of pensions principle. I wish to refer briefly to the debate that occurred at that time. In April 1973, the then Minister for Social Security, the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden)-the present Minister for Foreign Affairs-when introducing legislation which enabled portability of pension said: For too long, migrants have been told by past governments of their valuable contribution to the development of this nation. But for equally long too little has been contributed by those governments towards the special needs of so many migrants, especially during their difficult period of adjusting to a new, alien and not always hospitable society. In 1980, FILEF-the Federation of Italian Labourers, Emigrants and their Families-published a book edited by Morag Loh entitled With Courage in their Cases. FILEF is a well-respected organisation which provides essential support for the Australian Italian community. Unfortunately, a few weeks ago, the Opposition's Waste Watch Committee, in an unwarranted attack, tried to discredit FILEF on the basis of government grants that the organisation had received, mostly to support the cultural endeavours of the organisation. The basis for the attack was blatantly political. Honourable members opposite who are involved with the Waste Watch Committee do themselves no credit by failing to recognise or give credit to FILEF, which caters for sections of the Italian community, for the good work it does, particularly amongst blue collar workers and the elderly. The book related the experiences of 35 Italian migrant workers and their families. It is compelling reading and a testimony to the courage of ordinary people. An example of some of the experiences given by a woman who subsequently settled in my electorate is typical. It reads: My husband came in 1952 and at first he couldn't get a job because he couldn't understand English. His aunty in Shepparton had friends in Naracoorte and they wanted a bricklayer to help build a house. My aunty sent him. She wrote on a piece of paper and he had to show it to the people at the railway station, ``Please help this young man catch the train to Naracoorte!'' The story goes on to show how he learned to do many things and many kinds of work: ``He picked tomatoes, picked fruit, helped to build a dam in Murchison, worked as a builder's labourer, everything. He learnt English, he stayed here, I came to join him, we are settled. But he worked around, he worked hard.'' Later she related how her husband wanted to live in Carlton: A lot of Italians lived there, but he didn't have enough money. He bought land in Thomastown with a bungalow, put three hundred pounds deposit, and started to pay it off. We built the house later. When I came we lived in the bungalow. I was very happy. We were lucky, we didn't have to board with other people, I could stay by myself during the day. But sometimes I was afraid. There was nothing in Thomastown in 1954. There was wilderness, bush all around, the sheep would come and sing songs under my window. This example, like so many others, provides insight not only into the hardships faced by many migrants but also into the numerous and often unacknowledged day to day ways in which these people have contributed to the development of Australia since their arrival. This is a point worthy of emphasis. Again, in April 1973, the then Minister for Social Security stated: The presence of migrants in this country has been valuable to the nation and has given it and its people a far better future than would have been achieved otherwise. The Bill completes the Australian end of a procedure which will see the balance of money flowing between the two countries heavily in our favour. Indeed, in the first year of operation, it is estimated that the Australian Government's outlay of approximately $4.6m will be in contrast to the Italian Government's outlay of $38.3m. Nevertheless, should any of our Italian immigrants return to Italy, the provisions of the agreement constitute a recognition of that proportion of their working life spent in Australia during which time they contributed in all sorts of unseen ways to our development. In a more general sense, of course, reciprocal social security agreements are an internationally recognised means of protecting the rights of people who move between different countries. Like most other European countries, Italy has a network of agreements designed to ensure that the social security needs of its migrant workers are protected. This agreement with Australia is a further widening of that network. As the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) indicated, the agreement covers seven Australian benefits and 11 Italian benefits. Because it was difficult to obtain reciprocity on a benefit to benefit basis, due to the differences in the systems, a global approach was finally agreed. The measures will affect some 17,000 people in Australia and some 3,000 in Italy. There are expected to be considerably more people in Italy who will benefit from obtaining payments, but at this stage it has not been possible to confirm that. Much has been said by honourable members opposite about what they appeared to claim was inadequate consultation in coming to the agreement. They fail to recognise that the Minister was involved in some 50 meetings in Australia with the relevant migrant community groups and those meetings were well before the Government's position was settled. The honourable member for Grayndler indicated that there was a committee of five, including two Italian Australians, which advised the Minister on the way the consultative process should be carried out and on the policy issues involved. It should be acknowledged also that, over nine formal negotiating sessions totalling 54 days, officials of Italy and Australia exchanged information to enable the negotiation of the agreement. Before the agreement was signed, the Italian Australian community indicated its satisfaction with the Government's approach. That is the important feature. We are talking about negotiations taking place over a considerable period and the fact that a system of consultation has been entered into. I am sure that the problems which the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) outlined with other migrant groups will be catered for in further consultations to set up agreements that will cater for their needs. Another aspect on which I want to touch is publicity. I know that the Minister appreciates the need for publicity in all facets under his administration. He has a keen appreciation of the needs of the legislation. His electorate of Batman neighbours mine and it has a considerable Italian population. As I have already stated, Italian Australians have made a considerable impression on the development of the northern suburbs of Melbourne. I know that the Minister has a long-standing appreciation of the needs of that community. After the April agreement was put into place, a very effective brochure was produced by the Department. It was in Italian and English. Even more importantly, a bilingual telephone query service was put into place. Those are important measures that I am sure the Minister will keep in mind when the measures covered by the agreement are implemented next year. It is also hoped that the agreement with Italy will be a catalyst for some of the other migrant source countries. There are about 18 of them. Informal and formal discussions have been ongoing in Australia with the respective communities of those countries. It is hoped that further agreements will be reached when those negotiations have been completed. The agreement and the negotiations which preceded the signing of the agreement provide a workable model for further developments. There is sufficient flexibility, as demonstrated by the results of this agreement, to allow for the peculiarities of the social security systems of other countries. The Minister, in his second reading speech, emphasised that future agreements will be based on four main principles. It is important to repeat those. The first principle is that of shared responsibility, where each country contributes to a person's social security coverage. The second principle is that of equality of treatment, where the residents and citizens of both countries will be given access to the other country's social security laws. The third principle is totalisation-periods of residence in Australia during working life will be added to periods of contribution in Italy to allow people to meet the minimum period of residence or contributions required for a pension from either country. Lastly, it is on a pro rata basis. The amount of pension paid by Australia will be based on actual residence during working life and Italy will calculate its pension on actual contributions. The Minister also indicated in his second reading speech that the development of the agreement is based on a four-stage process which will be used as a formula for further agreements. The first stage is the detailed exchange of information, including written material and face to face meetings to enable both countries' officials to understand each other's social security systems. Indeed, the agreement that has been signed does not imply the end of this process. A number of queries were raised by speakers opposite about how some of the technical bureaucratic details would be developed. There will be a continuing process of consultation between officials of the two countries to establish those necessary administrative arrangements. The second part of the process is the consultation with the communities in Australia likely to be affected by the agreement. The honourable member for Grayndler indicated that in this case those procedures had been carried out. I think that the honourable member for Mitchell should await further developments when the agreements with other countries are developed. The third stage of the process is the negotiation of the terms of the agreement, taking into account the community views received from the Australian groups. The fourth stage, which is the stage we are at now with the agreement with Italy, is the legislation, ratification and implementation. The measures covered by this agreement will be implemented after the ratification by this Government and the Italian Government according to the respective procedures of those governments. It will then come into force on the first day of the month following such ratifications. The passage of this Bill will put Australia in a position where it is ready to ratify the agreement as soon as Italy has completed its parliamentary processes. It is therefore to be hoped that the Italian Government will be in a position early next year to complete its form of procedures so that the measures can be implemented without too much delay by mid-1987. I have much pleasure in supporting this Bill and commending it to the House. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(5.14) —I rise with a great deal of pleasure to speak on the Social Security Amendment (Reciprocity with Italy) Bill 1986 because in reality this Bill is a landmark. It marks the culmination of 34 years of striving by Australians of Italian birth or Italian descent to come up with a solution which will provide for them justice and equity. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), who is at the table, knows I am never backward in harshly criticising many of the things he does. It comes as no surprise to him to hear me frequently repeat my opposition to the assets test. But while it is certainly appropriate for me and other members of the Opposition to do our utmost to divert the Minister from his wrong ways, it is also appropriate that when he has done the right thing, I, at least, should stand up and say: `Minister, I praise you. This is a step in the right direction'. I think that when the Minister does the right thing, it is only right, proper, fitting and appropriate that I should praise him-although that may be the kiss of death. Nonetheless, as has been made clear by some other speakers in this debate, in particular the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) and the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), the Opposition does have some reservations about the Bill. The honourable member for Richmond pointed out that the Minister's claim that there were all winners and no losers is not necessarily correct. But I will leave that aside and again compliment the Minister on getting this Bill through. As I said, this solution has taken 34 years-until in April 1986 the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and his Italian counterpart, Mr Craxi, signed the agreement which is the basis of this Bill. I welcome it, and I believe that with some modification and some additional consultation, where required, it will serve as a model for the other agreements which will become necessary or are necessary now. We need to make progress with countries such as Greece, Malta, Turkey and Yugoslavia. I am particularly pleased that the provisions of this Bill will apply to all pensions, particularly age, invalid and widows' pensions. These areas have been a source of major concern to the Italian Australian community. Legislation providing for proportional portability of pensions based on a 25-year working life in Australia is desirable, and as far as I am concerned it is certainly a step in the right direction. The new agreement will mean that a person who has lived in Australia for 10 years will be entitled to a proportional pension if he or she goes back to live in Italy. If the person has lived in Australia for 25 years and goes back, he or she will be entitled to a full pension. Reciprocal arrangements apply through the Italian Government for people who return to live in Australia. It should be made quite clear that while Italy has a contributory system, the Australian system is funded and based on tax revenue. Italian pensions are based on periods of contribution combined with a level of earnings with a minimum level of pension, while Australia pays a fixed rate pension. In addition, the Italian system applies only to income earners, whereas our system applies to all adults living here. I am really very pleased that the agreement embodied and introduced in this Bill will enable Australia to pay pensions to many people who have made a very significant contribution to this country but for reasons of their own have chosen to retire and live in Italy. It is most appropriate that we should now make it very clear that there is nothing wrong in this Bill providing benefits to people who have come here, worked and contributed, and who go back to retire in the bosom of their families in their native country. How would any Australians, of whatever ethnic background-Scottish, English or whatever-react if they had lived and worked overseas for a couple of decades and lost out by retiring in their own country? It would be unjust and it would not be right. Therefore, it is extremely appropriate that this should apply. Every thinking Australian should be proud that some 300,000 people of Italian birth have chosen to come and live in Australia. I was born here, I had no choice in the matter. I am very happy that I was born here. I do not want to live anywhere else. But the people who have come here from other countries have made a deliberate choice. It is like choosing a wife. I think they honour us- Mr Cowan —They are pioneers. Mr NEHL —They are pioneers. I know the difficulties from personal experience, having worked in the management of migrant hostels for some two years. I know how hard it is for people to up stakes, leave everything, set off on a plane or a boat, and arrive here unable to speak the language and knowing nothing about the country. By crikey, I think every one of us must pay tribute to the migrant people who have come here, and not only to those who have arrived since World War II. All of us, unless we are Aboriginal, are the descendants of migrants. My name, Nehl, has a rather unusual spelling. It comes from a Danish great grandfather. We have all descended from migrants. As the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) so aptly put it a short while ago, the first generations to come to Australia, be it from Italy or wherever, were pioneers. The difficulties that people suffer when coming here are sometimes quite monumental. So I certainly pay tribute to those people of Italian birth who have come here and made such a significant contribution to our economic, social and cultural development in Australia. We have benefited and gained enormously, not only from Italians, of course, but also from the whole range of migrants who have come to this country. I would like to make passing reference to people of Italian descent or birth who live in my electorate. I count myself fortunate indeed that I enjoy the friendship of a great many people of Italian descent. Whether in growing bananas, fishing or any of those productive capacities, they work hard and contribute to the community. They are a definite and valuable part of any community in Australia; this is particularly so of the people to whom I refer. I must take this opportunity to make reference to one lady in particular, Mrs Nellie Spagnolo, who is perhaps the matriarch of the Italian community in Coffs Harbour-a tremendous lady who has made a marvellous contribution to Australia. Of course, there are many, many families of Italian birth and descent-the Costanzos, the Barbaratos, the Dal Pozzos-all of whom have made significant contributions to Australia. I think that it is probably time we put to rest the outrageous furphy, myth and intolerance that suggests that, where we have pension portability and reciprocity, Australia is paying out money by the tens of millions of dollars. The reality is that from this particular arrangement Australia will gain a great deal of money. Unfortunately, wherever one finds a little nest of prejudice or intolerance one gets people who pour forth vicious, vile rumours and try to destroy and divide. I think that every one of us in this place should take every opportunity to let Australia know that there is no truth in the claims of the people who go around saying these sorts of things. I will not even use the words they say, but they make pejorative references to people whom we all respect. These people claim that the money is rolling out of Australia back to those people living in other countries. I think it was the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay)-yes, indeed, it was you, Mr Deputy Speaker, when making your measured and worthwhile contribution to this debate a little while ago-- Mr Cowan —He always does. Mr NEHL —As the honourable member for Lyne said, he always does. He speaks thoughtfully and makes a very valued contribution. The honourable member for Grayndler pointed out that something like 17,000 Australian residents of Italian birth will benefit from the Italian Government. On the other hand, only 3,000 back in Italy will benefit from the Australian Government. I think this particular instance makes it very clear that the benefit is coming to Australia and to Australians, because those people of Italian birth or heritage are first and foremost now Australian. There are very few indeed who do not see themselves as Australians. That is why they came here-to contribute to Australia-and indeed they have made that contribution. I would like to amplify and provide a basis for those statements I have just made. It should be noted that the financial impact of the changes in the years 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90 will be very significant for us because, after all, the net inflow to Australia in 1987-88 will be $35.2m. In the next year, 1988-89, it will be $36.5m. The amount will rise again in 1989-90 to $37.9m. That is the net extra income to Australia after the outflow of payments from Australia to Italy. So let nobody tell me or anybody else in this Parliament that Australia is not benefiting from this Bill. Again, I would really like to compliment the Minister for what he has achieved with this measure and I look forward to his taking further steps down the track for other migrant groups in Australia. Mr Cowan —At least you are on good terms with him on this matter. Mr NEHL —The Minister knows where I stand on the assets test. But I was also interested to hear the remarks of previous speakers. I think it was the honourable member for Mitchell who raised the matter of the assets test and its application. I hope that the Minister for Social Security, who is at the table, is able to get around to looking at this matter. I know that he and the rest of the Cabinet are occupied looking at minor discrepancies in the fringe benefits tax at the moment. Of course, the people of Australia know that there is no solution to these problems except for the abolition of this tax, which will happen when the Hawke socialist Government goes out of power and the coalition takes office. I must take this opportunity to say again once and for all that the assets test will go and I know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that deep in your heart you will be glad that it is gone, too, because, as I have said already, your contribution to the Parliament is always significant. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I think I asked another honourable member yesterday not to involve the Chair in his own debating techniques. I would not like the honourable member for Cowper to put words into my mouth. Mr NEHL —Mr Deputy Speaker, if you are going to make that sort of observation, surely you should have made it a little earlier when I was praising you. At least you should be consistent. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I thought you were putting those words into other people's mouths. Mr NEHL —Oh, no. I would also like to say that I was particularly pleased by the attention given to this debate by the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) and the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), who unfortunately are not able to be with us at this moment, but were for most of the debate. I pay particular tribute to the contributions from the honourable member for Richmond and the honourable member for Mitchell. I have already mentioned the contribution from the honourable member for Grayndler, but I would also like to mention in passing the contribution made by the honourable member for Scullin (Mr Jenkins). He is, indeed, the true son of a great father, and he is filling that seat very well. He was not always right on the track, of course. He is misguided, but perhaps with a little time, a little more age and a little more knowledge he will be able to tread the straight and narrow path. But I certainly pay tribute to him. Before this debate is concluded, we will have probably three more speakers. I know that the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard), in his usual way, will make a contribution that will be stimulating and rewarding for the people who are lucky enough to hear it. Of course, the next speaker for the coalition, the honourable member for Riverina-Darling (Mr Hicks), needs no introduction to the members of the Italian community living in his electorate, because he is with them all the time and has a tremendous interest. I know of no member in this House who takes a greater interest in the Italian community and in serving and working for that community than the honourable member for Riverina-Darling. Of course, the final speaker in this debate will be the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright). I must confess that I do find it a little difficult to surround the honourable member for Capricornia with the same degree of harmony and praise that I have provided for other speakers in this debate. It seems to me-I say this with the greatest good will-that the honourable member for Capricornia, when he speaks in this place, spends most of his time barking rather like a castrated sea-lion, or, perhaps, bellowing like a mickey bull. I say, with all the good will in the world, that I know that the honourable member for Capricornia, when he gets up in a little while, will get stuck into me like anything, because this is what he does. All he does when he comes here is attack people. I just want to say, in concluding my contribution to this debate, that we, whether on the honourable member's side of the House or on this side, are all seeking to serve Australia. I have the greatest respect for the vast majority of people on the Government benches as individuals. But I think that it is fitting, proper and appropriate that we deal with each other with a degree of respect and, hopefully, a degree of liking-that is possible in the vast majority of cases-and make positive contributions, not just attack people endlessly. I do not believe that the purposes of this place or of the people of Australia are served by negative attacks. I am probably guilty of doing that at this moment. But I repeat that I make these comments not in any harsh frame of mind. I have listened to and observed the virulent and sometimes vicious approach of the honourable member for Capricornia. In conclusion, I urge him to come forth in this debate and offer to the people of Australia the undoubted care, compassion and concern that makes up a large part of his character. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(5.30) —I support the Social Security Amendment (Reciprocity with Italy) Bill 1986, which seeks to implement the cost sharing reciprocal social security agreement with Italy. I feel that I have a very hard task in doing so because the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl), with the fine bonhomie that he displayed in the debate this afternoon, is a very hard act to follow. I feel that I should acknowledge the fact that at least the honourable member was prepared to give credit where credit is due, to the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), who is at the table. In debate on a Bill in which there is a fair degree of bipartisanship, it is obvious that what we have had from the honourable member for Cowper is a genuine expression of how he views the Bill. Unfortunately, this contrasts with the somewhat carping criticism of the Bill from other members of the Opposition who have contributed to this debate. As the honourable member for Cowper and the honourable member for Scullin (Mr Jenkins) have said, Italian migrants have played an important role in the economic and social development of Australia in the post-war years. As we have already heard, today there are about 300,000 persons resident in Australia who were born in Italy. It is useful to remember that the first reciprocal agreement, the first attempt to look at this area of reciprocal agreements, goes back as far as 1943 when this country decided to have a reciprocal agreement with New Zealand. At that time it related to just age and invalid pensions; it was not the sort of agreement that we are talking about here. It was not until 1953 that the first agreement with the United Kingdom was reached. That agreement covered a fairly wide range of benefits. Now, 43 years on, we are entering what I consider to be a new phase of reciprocal arrangements in the social welfare area. The initial thrust for a reciprocal social security agreement came from Italy in 1952. As was pointed out by previous speakers, Italy, like most other European countries, has a network of agreements designed to protect the social security rights of its immigrant workers. The absence of a comprehensive agreement with Australia represented a significant gap in that network. It should be noted that the Italian Australian community generally welcomes the agreement, although there are of course some concerns that there may be delays in implementing the agreement. Australia amended its law for payment of pensions overseas on 1 July 1986. That legislation introduced a concept of proportional portability. This concept means that pensions generally will be paid outside the country on a proportional basis according to the period of residence in Australia of the claimant during a working life of 25 years. The amended law for payment of pensions overseas in fact provided a basis for cost sharing arrangements of which the Australia-Italy agreement is the first. This agreement embodies basic principles which will be reflected in all future agreements. Again, it has been mentioned that currently about 18 other countries have indicated an interest in negotiating a cost sharing agreement with Australia. I will turn to the principles of an agreement. The first principle is that of shared responsibility. Each country will contribute to a person's social security coverage. The second principle is equality of treatment. This means that the residents and citizens of each country will be given access to the other country's social security laws. The third principle is totalisation. This means that periods of residence in Australia during a person's working life will be added to periods of contributions in Italy to allow people to meet the minimum period of residence or period of contributions required for a pension from either country. The fourth principle is that of the pro rata basis. The amount of pension paid by Australia will be based on actual residence in Australia during a person's working life; Italy will calculate its pensions on the period of actual contributions. The agreement is wide ranging and will cover people who move between Australia and Italy, enabling them to qualify for a large number of Italian and Australian social security benefits. The effect of the agreement will be that no person will be disadvantaged. It is estimated that some 17,000 people in Australia and some 3,000 people in Italy will benefit when the agreement starts to operate. In the first year of the scheme Australia will outlay approximately $4.6m on social security payments while Italy will be required to pay about $38.3m. This debunks the argument that has been heard in this debate that this agreement, when finalised, will cost this country money. In fact, the reverse is the case. The agreement has a large degree of flexibility. Claimants will be able to apply for Australian benefits while living in Italy and to apply for Italian benefits while resident in Australia. Additionally, people currently not eligible will be able to make up the minimum eligibility period for the benefits covered-that is, for an age pension, 10 years in Australia and 15 years in Italy-by combining the period of Australian residence with the period of contributions in Italy during their working life. Australian benefits to be paid in Italy will generally be a proportion of the rate based on a person's actual residence in Australia during a 25-year working life. For example, a person in Italy who has had 10 years residence in Australia could qualify for 10/25ths of an income/assets tested Australian pension. Applicants for Italian unemployment benefit will be able to count Australian employment for eligibility purposes. Australian unemployment benefit is not included in the agreement as anyone coming to Australia as a permanent resident and able to meet the normal requirements for unemployment benefit has access to that benefit. At this point I must pay tribute to those persons from both this country and Italy who were involved in the very delicate negotiations that took place prior to the reaching of the present agreement. It is difficult to obtain reciprocity on a benefit to benefit basis due to basic differences in the social security systems of two countries. If one thinks of the exchange of information provisions for the agreement, they required delicate negotiations because of genuine concerns about confidentiality and privacy. Another issue which must be emphasised is the consultative process which was involved. The Minister for Social Security has been sensitive to the need for full consultation with migrant community groups, despite what was said by the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman). In fact, as we have already heard in this debate, the Minister had 50 meetings with such groups before the Government's position was finalised; yet the honourable member for Mitchell tried to argue the need for full consultation. The consultation was there. Additionally a committee of five, including two Italian Australians, advised the Minister on the consultative process and on policy issues. There were nine formal negotiating sessions, totalling 54 days, to exchange information and negotiate the agreement. It is clear from what I have said that the Minister has attempted to ensure that consultations were carried out to the fullest. There is a large measure of agreement within the Italian Australian community that the agreement will benefit that community. It is good to see that the Opposition does not intend to divide on this matter and supports the measure in general terms. I therefore support the Bill before the House. Mr HICKS(Riverina-Darling)(5.42) —The main purpose of the Social Security Amendment (Reciprocity with Italy) Bill is to provide implementation of the reciprocal agreement on social security signed with Italy on 23 April this year. It involves minor amendments to the Social Security Act 1947 to ensure that the agreement meshes with the Act. Reciprocal social security agreements are formal arrangements which countries enter into to ensure that people who move between them receive social security pensions on a fair and equitable basis. Like the agreement with Italy, Australia's future agreements will be based on principles that are in line with international practice. The first of those principles is shared responsibility-and I know that these matters have been mentioned by previous speakers-under which each party to the agreement will contribute to a person's total social security coverage. The second is equality of treatment, whereby the residents and citizens of both countries will be given equal access to each other's social security laws. The third is totalisation. Periods of residence and/or contributions in both countries will be added together to give people the minimum period of residence or contributions required to qualify for a pension from either or both countries. The fourth is a pro-rata basis. The total amount of pension to be paid by each country to people residing in the other will be based on the length of a person's residence or contributions. The Social Security Proportional Portability of Pensions Act 1986 enabled this principle to be adopted for Australia. It is interesting to note that Italy's social security system is contribution based. It depends on the period of contribution applicable to salaries while Australia's is needs based and provides for indexed flat rate pensions which are subject to the income and assets test. This legislation provides that residents of Australia on 8 May 1985 who qualify for pensions and leave Australia before 1 January 1996 will not be subject to proportional portability. This development has been long awaited by Australian and Italian citizens, and no doubt people from other countries, who are looking forward to reciprocal agreements between their nation of birth and Australia. Unfortunately, there have been a few problems, and I understand from various media reports-and I do not know whether this is true; this is only what I have read-that there has been a lack of consultation, although a number of speakers in this debate have praised the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) and said that this is not the truth. But there seems to be some misunderstanding in that area. The shadow Minister for Social Security, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), has explained to the House some of the anomalies that may arise and I am sure that the Minister will look into them. One problem that has arisen is that a number of citizens have telephoned my office asking me to explain how exactly the Bill will work. I have done some study of the matter and I think I am reasonably clear about it, but I would ask the Minister to assist the ethnic communities of Australia by issuing a simple document to explain to those people exactly how the legislation will work. Some people are confused about its effects. This is not the first reciprocal agreement that has been signed by Australia. I understand that social security agreements were signed with New Zealand in 1943 by the Curtin Government and with the United Kingdom in 1954. I am pleased that Italy is the first non-English speaking nation to enter into an agreement with Australia. It is fitting that agreement has been achieved with the great country of Italy. Most people would agree with me that there is something special about the Italian nation. Italy has given the world Leonardo Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Fermi, Nervi, Caruso and Marconi, to mention a few. I know that other honourable members could give similar examples. Italy has contributed so many migrants to Australia. In fact, there are in Australia today nearly 300,000 people who where born in Italy. Indeed, there are a million people in this country one of whose parents were born in Italy. If we look to those with at least one grandparent born in Italy, we find an even greater number-some 9 per cent of Australia's population is of direct Italian heritage. I believe that this is a great thing for Australia and I know that most Australians are proud of that fact. In looking at the Italian heritage and in mentioning some famous Italians of the past, one must appreciate that they lived in an Italy that was not the united nation it is today. One has only to look at Italian design to appreciate the achievements of Italians. Who in the world other than the Italians could have produced a Lamborghini, an Alfa Romeo or a Maserati? Very few people could have given us such fine example of design. Mr Blunt —They have the greatest sense of style in the world. Mr HICKS —I agree that they are the greatest stylists in the world. One has only to look at Italian furniture to see the truth of that statement. Italy is renowned for its furniture and perhaps the greatest designs come from that country. The same argument applies to Italian clothing designs. One knows that the Italians dress with flair and that their fashion designs are magnificent. In thinking of Australians of Italian heritage, one has in mind particularly Carla Zampatti, who has international fame, or Nevis Piccoli of Griffith. Both have a great flair for design and dress sense. One also has in mind the earthmovers of Australia such as Abignano, one of the greatest earthmoving companies in Australia, or Jim Ambrosini, who has done most of his work in the Wilcannia area and who now resides in Adelaide. These are all people of whom we can be proud. I wish briefly to touch on my electorate of Riverina-Darling, which is approximately the size of Italy. Although we have a large number of Italians and people of Italian heritage in the electorate, we could nowhere match the population of Italy, which I believe is over 60 million. The contribution of those Italian residents to my electorate, whether in the growing of wheat, rice, citrus crops or wine grapes, is unquestionable. I mention some of the wineries in the area-Rossetto and Sons, the Lillypilly Estate Winery of the Fiumara family, De Bortoli Wines Pty Ltd, San Bernadino Wines, Cinzano (Aust) Pty Ltd, Rubertos of Hay, Franco's Wines and Miranda Wines Pty Ltd. These are all people of Italian heritage who have added not only to my electorate but also to Australia's heritage. They have changed our way of eating and drinking; they are masters of cuisine and have added greatly to our heritage. Some people in Australia think of Italian migration or migration of other people to this country as flowing from the Second World War. However, some four million migrants have come to Australia since that time. As the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) said earlier, we are a nation of migrants. There are theories that even the Aboriginal people in their different way came to Australia. But certainly since the white man came to Australia, we are the sons, grandsons or great grandsons of migrants-an aspect which some people tend to forget. As I am talking about the Italian population, I would refer honourable members to a recently published book whose author Father Tito, of the Scallabrini order, now resides in the River Murray town of Red Cliffs. The book is entitled Non Siamo Arrivati Ieri. That means `We did not arrive here yesterday'. That is true, because the Italians have had a connection with Australia since the days of Captain Cook. I do not think that many people realise that. This book is written in Italian, but it will soon be published in English and I am sure that most honourable members will get a copy and read it so they can see what a great contribution the people of Italy have made to Australia. When I speak to my Italian friends in my electorate I think of the great Snowy Mountains scheme and all those people who came here after the Second World War to work on that scheme. I would suggest that anyone who has not been to the Snowy Mountains to look at that scheme should do so, particularly if he or she is a child of grandchild of a migrant who worked on that scheme. Anyone in that position could feel justly proud after seeing the work that was done there. I was recently in Italy, where I was talking about this reciprocal arrangement with Italians who had returned to their country of origin. I spoke particularly to people in northern Italy who worked on the Snowy Mountains scheme. Some of them worked in water up to their chests and in dangerous conditions. Some of them did not live to return to their country of origin. We are very proud of them and their country is also proud of them. Let us look at farmers in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area, particularly in Griffith and Leeton. The Italians there have a great heritage and they have done much great work from 1912 onwards. Let us look at the miners of Broken Hill and Mount Isa, many of Italian origin. I believe that the first people who came into the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area were from the Broken Hill area. The honourable member for Page (Mr Ian Robinson) will know well the colony of `new Italy' which consisted of Italian migrants who settled in Australia before this century. I believe that there was some heartache in that settlement, but the remains of it are still there and the Italian heritage is very much in evidence. While I am speaking about the honourable member for Page, I must refer to the great work that he did in the Inter-Parliamentary Union when he spoke with the Italian Government about this problem of reciprocal arrangements in the area of social security. If we look at any field of activity in Australia, whether is be commerce, farming, fashion, industry or government, we find people of Italian origin. They are in the most isolated mining camps of Australia and in the major metropolitan areas. In my area, the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area, when many of these farmers of Italian origin retire, they move into the towns of Leeton and Griffith. I invite any honourable members to visit these towns and any other towns in the area and see the meticulous way in which those people care for their homes and the surroundings. Both Leeton and Griffith are beautiful towns and provide an excellent example of assimilation. I am one of those people who are very much afraid of the word `multicultural' because I really do not know what it means. If honourable members come to Griffith or Leeton, they will see assimilation. Whether the people are from Friuli, Venezia, Calabria, Sicily, Toscana, Romagnana or any of those places, they work together well and they are really great Australian citizens. In Griffith last night there was a meeting of the tourist association calling together all the people to see how they could promote the area. I would like to see the tourist association promote the Italian influence in Griffith because it has been a wonderful blessing to the town. Those people have stood shoulder to shoulder with migrants from other countries and with Australians to develop that area. I am not saying that the Italians are the only people who have done anything; they certainly are not. However, they have stood shoulder to shoulder with the others and faced the ups and downs. In conclusion, I repeat what the honourable member for Cowper said earlier: There are some people in Australia who begrudge the right of these people to return to the country of their birth. This applies not only to the Italian people but also to Greeks, Germans and so on. I do not agree with those people because if we think of the great work that these immigrants have done on the Snowy Mountains Scheme and in other areas, we must realise that if they have any yearning to return to the country of their origin, they have earned the right to do so. Australia will certainly benefit more than Italy from this agreement, but that is beside the point. I am sure that most thinking Australians would agree with me that this reciprocal arrangement can do only good for Australian citizens. I pay tribute to honourable members who have spoken on this Bill, particularly the honourable member for Cowper, our Shadow Minister-the honourable member for Richmond-and the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman). I support this Bill. I hope that, if there are any problems arising from it, particularly in relation to the dissemination of information to enable the various ethnic groups to understand the situation, the Minister will take note of them. That will certainly be much appreciated. Anomalies have been mentioned and I hope that the Minister will look at those and try to sort them out. I am sure that Australians of Italian heritage in my electorate will welcome this Bill and I am sure that all migrant groups will welcome what the Minister has done here and what he is doing to develop other agreements. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(5.57) —In order to set the record straight it is necessary that I preface my remarks on the Social Security Amendment (Reciprocity with Italy) Bill by making some comment about the personal attack made on me by the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) as he concluded his speech. Obviously, in order to use up his time he started mentioning honourable members one by one. He accused me of using this House to attack individuals. I make no apology for using this House to expose the activities of the National Party State Government in Queensland, and if the honourable member for Cowper agrees with the Bond deal, let him say so. If he agrees with the $140,000 special loan to Behan when thousands of farmers are-- Mr McVeigh —On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker: What has this got to do with the legislation before the House? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —There is no point of order. After listening to the very fine speech of the honourable member for Riverina-Darling (Mr Hicks) and deciding to give some leeway to honourable members who have gone very wide of the Bill before the House, I understand that the honourable member for Capricornia is answering accusations that were also made in the course of the debate on this legislation. Mr McVeigh —On a further point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I submit for your deepest and most serious consideration that the fact that the honourable member is explaining how he has been misrepresented has nothing to do with what has happened in Queensland. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr WRIGHT —It is typical of Mr McVeigh to try to raise points of order-that is his approach. Mr McVeigh —On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker: Long established practice in this Parliament and, under the Westminster system, in the House of Commons is that a member is not called by his Christian name or surname; he is called by the electorate that he represents. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I uphold that point of order. Mr WRIGHT —Every time that I speak, the honourable member for Groom jumps up and takes points of order. Quite clearly he would prefer the honourable member for Cowper to make accusations without their being ever replied to. Mr McVeigh —On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker: I ask that those statements of castigation of me be withdrawn. They are unparliamentary. The Standing Orders refer to not speaking disparagingly of another member. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. I ask the honourable member for Groom not to keep raising points of order, and I assure him that I am au fait with the Standing Orders. Mr WRIGHT —As I said earlier, I make no apology for exposing the activities of the Queensland National Party Government. I make no apology for exposing firms that rip off consumers and have no concern for product safety. I make no apology for trying to stop people in this country from rorting the welfare system. Just for the record, if the honourable member for Cowper would like to check it through, when I have raised issues in this House, such as the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group's involvement with the failure of an aerobics health club, I have been proved correct. In that case the ANZ Bank came back and paid $3m to the people who had been caught. When I raised the Custom Credit issues with video firms, I was correct because 10,000 Australians were caught and since then Custom Credit has come to an arrangement about that. More recently when I raised the jojoba scandal it was proved later that that scandal had cost 3,000 investors $10m. I challenge the honourable member for Cowper to come back to this House at some other time and try to demonstrate how I have used this House for personal attacks. That is not true, but it is typical of the disinformation that is put out by members of the National Party of Australia. To return to the Bill: This legislation is evidence of the fact that perseverence pays off. As other honourable members have pointed out, discussions have been continuing between the Australian and Italian governments for many years. In fact, the discussion started something like 34 years ago. Over more than three decades constant representations were made to the Australian Government and the Italian Government by the Italian community to set up reciprocal arrangements. I was going to give credit to the honourable member for Cowper because at least he gave credit to the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), which was not the total thrust of the speech of the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman). The agreement was signed in Rome this year and the necessary legislation is now being debated in this House. As the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) explained, Australia will be the overall beneficiary under this agreement. Clearly both governments will have to contribute, but if one measures the amount of contributions one finds that the Italian Government will spend approximately $38m in any one year as against the $4.6m that will be paid by the Australian Government. When this agreement is finally dealt with by the Italian Parliament some 17,000 people in Australia and 3,000 people in Italy will benefit. Under the agreement each country will contribute to a person's social security coverage and the residents and citizens of each country will be given access to the other country's social security laws. This has to be applauded. The amount of pension paid by Australia will be based upon actual residence during a person's working life, while Italy will calculate its pensions based upon actual contributions by the recipient. We all accept that it has taken a long time to finalise the agreement, but given that Italy will soon take action, the new scheme should prevail next year. I noted that the honourable member for Mitchell, regardless of the pluses and positive aspects of this legislation, still had to criticise the Government. I suppose that is the role of the Opposition and having been in that role in Queensland I understand it. The honourable member talked about a patch-up approach. I note also that he criticised the Government about the New Zealand situation, where some New Zealanders have come here and have been having holidays around the country while bludging on our social welfare system. Let us make a comparison between this Government and previous governments. This is the Government which has acted on the Italian-Australian agreement. I have mentioned that the agreement has taken 34 years to complete, since 1952. The Liberal-National Party coalition which sits opposite was in power for 28 of those 34 years. It is worth noting that nothing was achieved during that time. We can contrast that inaction and apathy with the expeditious way in which the Minister for Social Security and this Labor Government have acted on this matter in the three years since we were elected in March 1983; the agreement was signed in April of this year. The Opposition, instead of being critical, should at least give due credit. The situation is exactly the same with regard to the New Zealand problem. New Zealanders have been coming to Australia for years and years. We had a reciprocal arrangement with New Zealand, going back to 1949, which simply allowed New Zealanders to land here and state that they would be permanent residents, then automatically claim social security benefits. I followed up this matter this year. Some figures given to me at that time showed that 400 Australians were receiving social security benefits in New Zealand, but some 11,000 New Zealanders were getting benefits in Australia. Earlier this year I took it upon myself to approach the Minister for Social Security with a list of cases of abuse of the system, particularly on the east coast, but also in most capital cities. A person would go to Adelaide and apply for a social security benefit and would next be found enjoying the beautiful weather of Cairns. There were cases and cases of people coming into Australia and abusing officers in the Department of Social Security because those officers would not automatically give them a pension. In one instance it was well known in Brisbane that if someone could not get his or her way with the Department of Social Security people, he or she went to a certain senator who is the wife of the Queensland Premier and her staff would ring up and question why that person had not received a social security benefit. If that figure of 11,000 is correct, as I have every reason to believe it is, it means that Australian taxpayers are paying $1m a week or $50m a year, calculated on an average of $100 per person. I congratulate the Minister not only on acting on the Italian-Australian agreement but also on acting on that complaint and on the revision of the social security agreement between Australia and New Zealand. This Government has taken action to stop the waste, fraud, misuse and abuse under the system. New Zealanders coming to Australia now will not be able to claim unemployment benefits during the first six months. Only after there has been a six-month period of residence and they can show that they have been working for at least two months, or have purchased a home, are they eligible to claim benefits. This Government has taken that sort of action, yet time after time members of the Opposition stand up here and criticise us, as the honourable member for Mitchell did. During the eight years that the Opposition was in government, from 1975 to 1983, New Zealanders flooded across the Tasman. The problem was there, but the Opposition did nothing to solve it. Opposition members are always quick to criticise but very slow to give credit. I had a note to give credit to the honourable member for Cowper, because at least he got up and gave credit where credit was due, but Opposition members are quick to forget their inaction and procrastination. I know that the honourable member for Cowper will call a quorum and it will be typical of him. Did you bring in your mate to call a quorum? Mr Nehl —Not at all. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member for Capricornia will refer to honourable members by their correct title. Mr Andrew —Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member for Capricornia has drawn my attention to the fact that I ought to draw your attention to the state of the House. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —A quorum is required. Ring the bells. The bells being rung- Mr Wright —You came in especially to do this. The honourable member for Cowper cannot take it. He gives all the dirt, but cannot cop it. You called in your Deputy Whip to call a quorum. Mr Nehl —That is absolutely untrue. I came down because of the disgusting, virulent attack you made upon Senator Bjelke-Petersen. You proved the whole point of what I have been saying. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Cowper will stop shouting across the House. Mr Wright —Tell him to take his pills. Mr Nehl —What's that supposed to mean? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Cowper will cease shouting. Mr Nehl —I raise a point of order. Surely you can be even-handed. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member for Cowper have a point of order? Mr Nehl —I wish to raise the point of order that the correct usage of the Chair must surely see an even-handedness in asking honourable members to be quiet and not to shout across the floor. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Cowper will withdraw that reflection upon the Chair. Mr Nehl —I intended no reflection upon the Chair. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Cowper will withdraw that reflection upon the Chair. Mr Nehl —Of course I withdraw it. I intended no reflection. I withdraw it totally and wholeheartedly, but I maintain, if I may continue the point of order- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —No, there was no point of order in that. (Quorum formed) Mr WRIGHT —After the quorum called by the Opposition Deputy Whip, it is easy to see the lack of interest shown by the Opposition in this debate. I was making the point that Opposition members are quick to criticise the Government but easily forget their inaction, procrastination and apathy in dealing with matters which affect the quality of life of those Australians who are aged or disadvantaged. It was the Hawke Labor Government which, in its first Budget, in 1983, introduced a remote area allowance for people on social security and living in tax zone A. This meant an additional $7 a week for a single person, $12 a week for a married couple and $3.50 a week for each dependent child. It has also been the Hawke Labor Government that has reversed the downward trend of the age pension under the Fraser Government compared with average male earnings. Now it is over 24 per cent because the Hawke Labor Government had this interest and concern. It has been the Hawke Labor Government that has acted to address the poverty traps. The family income supplement has been increased by 70 per cent, from $10 to $17 a week. From July 1987, the additional income that pensioners can earn for each child will double, from $6 to $12 a week. The additional pension for children has been increased from $10 to $17 a week. The assistance given for pensioners renting privately has been increased by 50 per cent, from $10 to $15 a week. This has been the Government that introduced a carer's pension that is paid to a person providing constant care and attention for a severely handicapped or infirm relative. If one contrasts that with the record of the Opposition, one finds that we have a Liberal-National Party Opposition that wants to abolish the unemployment benefit for the long term unemployed. Now it is wanting to get rid of the unemployment benefit for people under 21 years of age. It wants to privatise the social security system. It wants to slash welfare spending by $3.5 billion. It wants to introduce compulsory work for single parents and the unemployed. It wants to abolish the assets test and allow people with $500,000 in the bank to get a pension. On the other hand, it wants to make the poor pay more tax and the rich pay less tax. It wants to abolish or tax family allowances. Yet it says that it really cares. I think the record shows what the situation is. As I said earlier, I welcome this Bill because it is the beginning of major changes in reciprocal social security arrangements. Whilst we have now acted in relation to the Italian situation, the people of Australia ought to know that an Australian delegation is visiting the United Kingdom this month to discuss renegotiation of the United Kingdom agreement. The items on the agenda will include indexation of United Kingdom pensions in Australia, negotiations along the lines of the Australian model agreement and working holidaymakers. An Australian delegation visited New Zealand in July, and a new draft agreement has been prepared for consideration by both governments. This draft addresses the problems of New Zealanders receiving the unemployment benefit, to which I referred before. Fact finding discussions are taking place in Athens, Greece, this month. The Greek community will be informed of the results of the exchange and will be consulted as to whether negotiations should take place. Fact finding discussions are taking place in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, this month. There is a possible visit by a Spanish delegation for informal discussions later this year. Preliminary discussions began in December last year in Bonn, West Germany, and Vienna, Austria, and further negotiations will take place in November and December this year. A Canadian delegation visited Canberra during April for preliminary discussions, and an Australian delegation will visit Ottawa in October for detailed negotiations. Even Malta and Switzerland are being covered. The point that I make in conclusion is that this is the Government that is redressing the problems when it comes to reciprocal arrangements for those who are on social security benefits. This is the Government that ought to be commended for taking the steps and showing the initiative. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(6.13) —in reply-I begin by thanking people for their contributions to the debate on the Social Security Amendment (Reciprocity with Italy) Bill. This Bill represents the culmination of discussions that have gone on for a very long time. It is an historic agreement between Australia and Italy. An illustration of what I think must have been one of the more extensive processes of community consultation, leading to the legislation on proportional portability and then to this Bill, is the fact that we would not sign agreements without there being a specific Bill in relation to each agreement. The purpose of that was to make it very clear to the various communities that nothing would be done in anything but the full light of day and that people, and indeed the Parliament, would have the opportunity to scrutinise the agreements as they are achieved. I notice that the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) has come into the House. I made a reference earlier today to his mendacity, which I withdrew at the time and for which no doubt I could have apologised. I made that reference to the honourable member because he has deliberately failed to represent accurately publicly the fact that he and I had a conversation within this Parliament in which I made it clear, very early in the time for which I have been Minister, that in the process of renegotiating the agreement between Australia and New Zealand we would deal with the questions of the unemployment benefit and the supporting parent benefit as matters that were properly of concern in Australia. I having informed the honourable member that that was my intention and of the sensitivity in terms of Australia-New Zealand relations on this issue, he went ahead and made a series of public statements which resulted in what I think was a fairly rare occurrence in that Ann Hercus, the New Zealand Minister, and I felt that we needed to put out a joint statement deploring the attacks, which were, in my view, often indiscriminate, on New Zealanders in Australia. Ann Hercus and I were both quite concerned about the questions of fraud and people misrepresenting their circumstances. There is a certain relationship on some matters in which I think some respect and some sensitivity could be shown. With respect to the question of New Zealanders, the honourable member for Richmond has simply sought to use it as a political football. I guess that he has got some small advantage out of that, but frankly I do not respect him for it. I go to the more specific points that were made in the contribution by the honourable member for Richmond, which completely lacked any graciousness, which was somewhat carping and which seemed to show very little understanding of the facts. There seemed to be some suggestion that, even though the Opposition joined the Government in supporting this measure, there would have to be anomalies; there would have to be people who would lose somehow as a result of this social security agreement between Australia and Italy. The honourable member, who had his speech interrupted by lunch, lost no opportunity today-not a day for the long lunch-to get out a Press release outlining the principal points made in his speech. He nominates two specific cases in which he suggests that people may lose as a result of this agreement. He cites the case of someone who arrived in Australia around 8 May 1985-I think it was the day before-who is here for 10 years, having arrived in Australia at something like 55 years of age, and then who leaves Australia, as I understand it, just after 1 January 1996. The honourable member claims-I think correctly-that such a person will be eligible for only something like 43 per cent of the Australian pension. Would not someone who is aged 55 years and who has come from Italy have some rights with respect to the Italian social security system? He is very likely to be insured and, simply as a result of that insurance, on his return to Italy he would be able to pick up some rights. Even if he were not insured, even if he were on a minimal pension, by virtue of this agreement he would certainly be receiving in Italy something like the equivalent of the Australian pension. In most instances he would receive rather more in total as a result. Is the honourable member for Richmond seriously suggesting that, despite the fact that Senator Chaney talked about proportional portability and 40 years, there is something unfair about someone being 10 years in Australia, receiving his proportion from the Australian Government, returning to an agreed country and then receiving the balance? It seems that that is what proportional portability is all about. That is simply an illustration of the principles that are involved in the Bill. A further problem-apparently it is a sufficient problem to merit its inclusion in the Press release of the honourable member for Richmond-is posed by those who go to a country with which we have a reciprocal agreement without full portability and who have no pension entitlement because it is not their country of origin. As we have been talking about Italians, let us take the position of the Italian who prefers to go to Greece rather than to return to his native Italy. He is someone who presumably will have some entitlements by virtue of the agreement in Italy, and some entitlements in Australia by virtue of proportional portability. That person is helped by the Italian-Australian agreement to achieve portability of the Italian rights that he has as someone who spent time in Italy. The current agreement would be quite relevant to someone receiving a pension in Greece. An Italian in that position would have rights under the Australian social security system and the Italian social security system. The Press release states: Those people born in Europe, who work in Australia then return to Europe but don't return to their country of origin are in a real bind. As the number of agreements increase this problem will trap more and more people. One of the problems of the honourable member for Richmond is that he is fundamentally lazy. He is not prepared to do the necessary work and prepare for what I think is an important measure. We intend to achieve a network of agreements and we have allowed ourselves a period of time-- Mr Blunt —But what about the Europeans? Mr HOWE —The honourable gentlemen has had his say and I will have mine. We have allowed ourselves a period of time to achieve a network of agreements. Someone of Italian origin who has spent time as a guest worker in Germany and comes to Australia to work here for a period could receive part pensions from all three countries as a result of a network of social security agreements. There are obviously quite strong possibilities that we shall achieve quite a comprehensive network of agreements with European countries over the 10 years. It seems that the honourable member for Richmond has not done his homework. To issue such a Press release is some kind of joke. We move on from the Bill, which seems not greatly to have interested the honourable member for Richmond, to a number of problems that really have nothing to do with the measure that is before us, which deals with the Australian-Italian agreement. Others have talked about New Zealand and I have touched on it myself, but the honourable member referred to portability and asked why portability is not included in the renegotiated agreement. I cannot make New Zealand introduce portability. All that I can do is argue for it. I can understand and accept a commitment to conduct an inquiry into portability. I can set a time limit, in a sense, to allow the agreement to run, and the New Zealand agreement provides for three years during which the matter can be discussed. I can accept the fact that there are quite difficult problems and serious reasons why New Zealand has not introduced portability at this stage. I hope that it will do so, and I have put that view strongly to the New Zealanders. I think that the model of proportional portability might be a solution to some of the problems that New Zealand sees in the South Pacific. Let it not be suggested that somehow I am unaware of, not taking seriously, or not trying to meet the problems. In many instances I am aware of them and trying to deal with them long before they are mentioned. The honourable member for Richmond referred to a 38-page or 41-page child support paper. He complained in the House yesterday that it had come to his attention only two hours previously and that he had had no opportunity to read it. I know where the honourable member was for the two hours in question and I know also that he had every opportunity to read it. It is a pity that propositions were thrown away, as it were. If the honourable member had read the paper and other work on maintenance he would know how complicated and difficult a subject it is. The proposition that is included in the discussion paper on child support is one which does not go merely to enforcement but to a method of assessing the relevant contribution from liable parents. That has been a major problem in the history of discussion of maintenance. I hope that Parliament will address this issue. The honourable member for Richmond referred to the $87m that we are contributing to former Australian citizens who are living overseas. He spoke as if this were an immense sum that we would not be able to monitor and control. He should understand that $300m is being paid into Australia by overseas governments and pension schemes currently and that the problem to which he refers arises for all the governments that are paying moneys into Australia. They are not always able to locate people in Australia but there are different ways of achieving-- Mr Blunt —What about the assets test? Mr HOWE —The honourable member is obsessed about the assets test. Other countries have wealth taxes and regulations that are implemented to assess people's real wealth. Such assessments are not confined to current income when there are payments that might be made. We can deal with the assets test when we come to the Social Security Bill so I shall not allow myself to be drawn on that issue. The honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) said that there had been a dearth of figures. Estimates in this area are difficult to achieve and are often chancy, but they have been provided by a number of contributors to the debate. The figures suggest that the agreement is of considerable value to Australia in terms of net flows of funds. I do not think that anyone would argue that the agreement is not favourable. At the same time it is difficult to estimate what the balances would be across the range of agreements. It is difficult to be precise. We have done a great deal of work on consultation but it is my view that we should proceed fairly slowly and cautiously with future agreements. Some of the discussions which have been referred to are at an early stage and represent exchanges of information. Where there are substantial negotiations, I shall ensure that consultations occur along the lines that were set out in the second reading speech, namely, appropriate procedures. I appreciate very much the contribution of several members of the National Party in the debate. I shall take up the problem raised by the honourable member for Riverina-Darling (Mr Hicks). It is important that we communicate effectively with communities and I shall try to ascertain whether there are any special measures that we need to take in the area which he represents. In my electorate we recently ran a quite well-attended seminar for Italians on the agreement. I think that I am probably running out of time so I shall close by thanking honourable members for their contributions. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Howe) read a third time. Sitting suspended from 6.31 to 8 p.m. Debate resumed from 24 September, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(8.00) —The Banking Legislation Amendment Bill has the purpose of winding up the activities of the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank of Australia. I might say with no thanks to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford), who made the second reading speech and did not mention it, that it also seeks to have the remuneration of the Governor, the Deputy Governor and Board members of the Reserve Bank subject to the determination of the Remuneration Tribunal. At present, the remuneration of those people is determined by the Governor-General. The Opposition has no objection to that second half of the Bill, but it would have been nice to have it mentioned by the Minister in his second reading speech. The main part of the Bill is the winding up of the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank. The Rural Credits Department was established in 1925 to make short term advances to statutory marketing authorities and to co-operative associations of primary producers to assist in the marketing, processing or manufacture of primary products. Those arrangements helped to smooth seasonal fluctuations by providing finance in advance of sales. Essentially, it was short term accommodation. In the early days, and up until more recently, finance was provided at rates of interest lower than market rates. So there was an element of subsidy involved in the activities of the Rural Credits Department. In the past, the largest borrower has been the Australian Wheat Board, which accounted for about 75 per cent of the borrowings. However, in recent years the Board has relied on its own commercial funding. That was perhaps the biggest slice of lending from the Rural Credits Department removed. Both the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System and the Martin Review of the Australian Financial System, which was established by the present Government, had recommended the phasing out of the Rural Credits Department. Since the two reports were presented over the past few years advances by the RCD, which had previously been at concessional rates, have been brought into line with market rates. This, together with the fact that customers had made alternative financing arrangements, led to a substantial decline in advances and number of borrowings, quite apart from the removal of the Wheat Board's borrowing. The phasing out of the Rural Credits Department was announced by the Government in April this year. Certain areas have still been assisted in a relatively minor way compared with previous levels of activity. These have included advances in dairy products, rice and cotton and, to a lesser extent, superphosphate, canned and dried fruits, eggs, sugar and ginger. The Opposition agrees with the proposal which was recommended initially by the Campbell Committee, which was established by the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) when he was Treasurer, and confirmed by the Martin group that was set up by the present Government to look at financial markets in much the same way as the Campbell Committee. However, we express some concern about the fact that there is an avenue for the supply of research funds from the RCD. A number of smaller industries which have not generally been supported by the more established forms of funding for rural research have relied on the profits of the RCD to fund their research. The Minister, in his second reading speech, said: Consideration will be given to supplementing funds available for rural research in future years as the activities of the RCD are phased out. There is no commitment from the Government to do that. No procedure is indicated by which the Government would actually do that. We are concerned that that funding for the smaller areas in rural research should continue. Therefore, the Opposition moves: 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 is concerned that the Government has not made alternative arrangements for replacing the funds normally generated for rural research from the activities, now to be phased out, of the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank'. The amendment will be seconded by my friend the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer). I shall not delay the House further as I know that other members wish to speak. It is a rationalisation measure. It is part of the reforms of the financial system recommended by the Campbell Committee. Clearly, it is not a proper function for the Reserve Bank, as a central bank, to be involved in the supply of rural credits. Under a deregulated financial system, it is proper that these funds be supplied in a commercial manner. If any assistance is to be provided to rural industries-in many instances there is a need-that should be provided by explicit action of the Government rather than through a particular department of the Reserve Bank. The Opposition will not oppose the measure. It merely draws attention to the need for the Government to give a quite explicit undertaking that the important rural research funds provided previously by the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank will be provided in some other manner. DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Leo McLeay)- Is the amendment seconded? Mr Tim Fischer —I second the amendment. Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Before calling the honourable member for Charlton, I call the honourable member for Gilmore, who wishes to make a personal explanation. Mr SHARP(Gilmore) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SHARP —Yes, I do. Earlier today in Question Time, the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) said that I had been wrong in a Press release announcing the coalition's drugs task force survey of recipients of government funding under the drug offensive launched in April this year by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I am the chairman of the task force and it is for that reason that I claim to have been misrepresented. The survey had indicated that only six out of 71 organisations surveyed had received new funding as a result of the drug offensive. To illustrate how I have been misrepresented by the Minister, I shall use an example-one of many that I could have used. The Minister said in his answer that the drugs task force had claimed that We Help Ourselves had received no new funding as a result of the drug offensive. The Minister said that the WHOS group had received $104,000 of new funding under the drug offensive. In 1985-86, WHOS received $125,414. In this financial year, WHOS will receive $104,373. How the Minister can call a reduction from one year to another new funding under the drug offensive is beyond me. There is no way that the amount of $104,000 is new funding. I am left to conclude that that example, along with others I could have given to the House, is an illustration of how the Minister has misled the House. He should be ashamed of himself. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! the honourable member is starting to argue the matter. Debate resumed. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(8.09) —The Banking Legislation Amendment Bill 1986 has a number of principal purposes. The main purpose of the legislation is to provide for the winding up of the activities of the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank of Australia and, when its operations have ceased, to allow for the termination of the Department. There are at least four major provisions in the Bill. The first one is to provide a revised definition of organisations which are eligible to receive seasonal advances from the Rural Credits Department to remove any doubt as to the eligibility of co-operative associations to receive advances as the activities of the Rural Credits Department are phased out. Secondly, there is the provision to restrict the Rural Credits Department from making seasonal advances or discounting Bills after 30 June 1988, or such later date as is determined by the Treasurer, which will enable sufficient time for customers of the Rural Credits Department to exercise final drawing rights under the transitional arrangements for the phasing out of the scheme. The third provision is that as the activities of the Rural Credits Department are wound up, capital and reserves that are surplus to its operational requirements can then be distributed either to the Reserve Bank Reserve Fund or to Consolidated Revenue as determined by the Treasurer following consultations with the Board of the Reserve Bank. Finally, the Bill provides for the repeal of legislation establishing the Department on a date to be fixed by proclamation and which could be expected to follow the cessation of activities of the Rural Credits Department and the distribution of its capital and reserves. As far as the financial impact of this proposal is concerned, the Bill does provide for the distribution of capital and reserves of the Rural Credits Department which stood at about $140m at 30 June 1986. As I indicated earlier, one of the provisions was for that to be distributed either to the Reserve Bank Reserve Fund or to the Consolidated Revenue as the Treasurer may determine. I suppose in terms of the types of provisions and arrangements that have existed in Australia to facilitate the provision of finance for marketing authorities in particular and various types of rural co-operative arrangements, the Rural Credits Department, since it was established in 1925, has fulfilled a fairly important function. In more recent years, however, we have seen fairly dramatic transition concerning the structure of financial institutions and the types of facilities and arrangements to which they have given rise. I do not detract from the fact that the previous Government did initiate some changes in the structure of financial institutions in Australia and the role and functions that they fulfilled and embarked, at least in part, on the process of de-regulation in order to make it possible for Australia's financial system to respond more adequately to the types of contemporary demands that were being made on it. It is of interest that it was left to a democratic socialist government in Australia to complete that process. I think it was important that the process should be undertaken. I am not one of those people who subscribe to the belief that deregulation is necessarily good in itself. I do not believe that for one moment. But I am prepared to agree with the fact that once we have had an accumulated series of regulatory debris of the kind we had in Australia, which seriously impedes the efficiency with which institutions are able to fulfil the special responsibilities which they have, advantage should be taken of any opportunity which makes it possible to haul that debris out of the system. This Government more than any other government has been responsible for doing that to the financial system. If it then becomes necessary for us to identify the particular deficiencies which have resulted from the removal of all of those unnecessary obstacles and unnecessary inhibitions on the free and efficient operation of those institutions, increasingly in the future we will give consideration, as any government should, to the need to address those particular problems and deficiencies as they arise. This is certainly the most recent attempt by the present Government to get rid of some of this debris. The Rural Credits Department has long ceased to fulfil those particular responsibilities with which it was charged. I do not believe that the National Party of Australia has indicated any significant degree of concern about the gearing down and the phasing out of the Rural Credits Department. I indicated before that it was established in 1925, the chief purpose being to make short term credit available for the orderly marketing of primary produce. It was continued in that same form under the provisions of the Reserve Bank Act 1959, when it became a department of the Reserve Bank which was then established to take over the central banking functions of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. Over the years the Reserve Bank has made advances through this Department to co-operative associations and marketing boards for the processing and marketing of primary produce. Until relatively recently the Australian Wheat Board, which was by far the Department's biggest customer, borrowed enough money from the Rural Credits Department at a concessional rate of interest to make advance payments to growers. Deliveries of wheat were made before the actual wheat crop was sold. The Wheat Board then took advantage of the credit facilities available through the Rural Credits Department. The Board subsequently repaid the Rural Credits Department when the crop had been sold. In the Reserve Bank report and financial statements for this year, the balance sheet for the Rural Credits Department indicates that the total reserves, both within the Rural Credits Department Reserve Fund and the reserve for contingencies and general purposes, together with initial capital of in excess of $9m, were roughly $140m. As I indicated, that money will be disbursed either to the Reserve Bank Reserve Fund or to Consolidated Revenue at the discretion of the Commonwealth Treasurer. It is interesting to see some of the variations from year to year in the advances that have been made by the Rural Credits Department. For example, going back to 1969-70, there was an actual reduction in the level of outstanding advances. This was particularly due to the fact that after the March quarter, when most of the advances were being made following the wheat harvest, there was a reduction in the level of advances of $140m over the year. In 1974-75 there was a reduction of $6m in the level of outstanding advances. In 1976-77 there was an increase in the level of outstanding advances of $378m. Concern expressed in the report of the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System, and then more recently in the Martin group report on the Review of the Australian Financial System which reported to the Hawke Government on the recommendations of the Campbell Report, about the way in which the Rural Credits Department was operating was such as to exaggerate the types of liquidity variations which took place within 12 months. For that reason, among others, the Campbell report recommended that the Rural Credits Department should be phased out. The recommendation was adopted and taken up by the Martin group report and it made a similar recommendation. The advances that were made by the Rural Credits Department were primarily secured by a charge over the commodity and related book debts and some advances were secured as well by Commonwealth or State Government guarantees. In June 1980 most of those interest changes on advances from the Rural Credits Department ranged from about 9 1/2 per cent through to 10 per cent per annum. I indicated earlier that the advances were made available particularly to those marketing authorities and various types of rural co-operatives on a concessional basis. At that time the level of the concession on interest was only about one per cent; nevertheless, the concession was built into it. I think at that time the interest rate for small advances through the banking system-those of less than $100,000-was about 10 1/2 per cent, which was about 0.5 per cent above the maximum that was being charged by the Rural Credits Department. For advances over $100,000-that is, the larger advances-through the banking system, the interest rate in June 1980 ranged from about 12 1/4 per cent to about 12 1/2 per cent. So a fairly significant inbuilt concessionary interest rate was available to those authorities and co-operatives which were able to take advantage of it. I indicated that the Campbell report itself suggested that the liquidity base of the Australian financial system was subject to substantial within-year swings, principally as a consequence of the uneven flow of income tax receipts but also reflecting other factors such as the seasonal concentration of rural sector output and associated financial arrangements. A number of proposals were put forward in order to take out those seasonal swings in liquidity and to improve the general across the year financial and monetary credit arrangements in Australia. The third of the recommendations made by the Campbell Committee argued that, as a result of the advances made by the Rural Credits Department having the effect of accentuating those seasonal variations in liquidity, the problem might be eased if all or part of the seasonal financing needs were satisfied by commercial lenders. Of course, the fact that the Reserve Bank itself-and the Reserve Bank's relationship with the Commonwealth and its instrumentalities-has increasingly assumed a more commercial role and has applied more commercial rates and arrangements in its relationship with the Commonwealth and its agencies has, of course, flowed over as well to the Rural Credits Department. So the provision of short term finance through the Rural Credits Department increasingly assumed the type of commercial characteristics that existed elsewhere in the economy. The Government, of course, has responded to all of those types of provisions and arrangements and to the concerns that have been expressed by those two most significant inquiries into the financial system. I know that the first, the Campbell Report, was initiated by the previous Government. I notice that the former Treasurer and now Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), who was responsible for initiating that report, is in the chamber at present. I appreciate the fact that the honourable member for Bennelong has shown me the courtesy, as he normally does, of coming into the chamber to hear the very significant contribution that I am making. The authority which took greatest advantage of the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank was the Australian Wheat Board. It traditionally was the Rural Credits Department's largest customer. It generally accounted for about three-quarters of the total advances made through the RCD. However, since 1981-82, as a result of Commonwealth requests, the Australian Wheat Board has fully met its seasonal finance requirements from commercial sources. So the largest customer and beneficiary of the operation of the Rural Credits Department ceased to depend upon it. Of course, it continued to provide a number of services for a number of other boards, such as the Australian Dairy Corporation, the State egg boards, the Australian Egg Board, the Australian Honey Board and the Australian Canned Fruits Corporation. All of those advances were guaranteed by the Commonwealth Government. In addition, it continued to lend, without the security of any Commonwealth guarantee, to about 45 other marketing authorities and rural co-operatives covering about 20 different commodities. But, as I have said, the biggest single beneficiary from the initial operation from 1925 of the Rural Credits Department, the Australian Wheat Board, ceased to depend upon the Rural Credits Department. It became apparent to the Government and undoubtedly to the Opposition as well that the Rural Credits Department had outlived its usefulness and was no longer fulfilling any satisfactory or necessary purpose. The nature of the concessional arrangements that had been made available and ceased to be contemporarily valuable and it was seen that the Department could well be phased out. Of course, the Reserve Bank has recently been in the process of phasing it out. The interest subsidy that was given to the Australian Wheat Board when it finally moved from the Rural Credits Department financing to the private sector financing which, as I indicated, took place in the 1981-82 financial year, amounted to about $70m, which was then spread over about four years. This gives some idea of the extent of that inbuilt subsidy as far as the concessional interest rates were concerned. No really serious claim has been made either by rural interests or by operators within the financial system that there was any need for that type of arrangement to continue. I think that this measure is important in connection with the general position which has been adopted by this Government in respect of its overall economic policy. I have no doubt that members of the Opposition, just as members of the Government and particularly members of the National Party, would have taken advantage of the opportunity to study very closely, as they should have, the economic and rural policy of the Hawke Government which was issued in April 1986. I am sure that the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar), who has come into the chamber to hear and participate in this discussion, has read this statement very closely. It is an extremely important statement in respect of all of those areas of rural policy, particularly for those people in rural areas who are pursuing legitimate rural interests, those people who participate in the great rural industries of Australia which have been given so much consideration, attention and sympathetic understanding by the Hawke Government. Those people who have taken advantage of the opportunity to study the economic and rural policy of this Government that was published and made available in April 1986 will know the extent to which that rural policy is dependent upon and related to the general economic approach of the Government. Page 8 of that statement provides: The Government's overall approach to economic policy is firmly established. It is based on a realistic appreciation of the facts, careful analysis of the options and the negotiation and implementation of sound programs. Our aim-- that is, the aim of the Hawke Labor Government-- is to continue to implement policies that will lead to a demonstrable improvement in national economic performance and social welfare, including that of the rural sector. In terms of necessary deregulation of the financial system, the achievements of the Hawke Government have been nothing short of spectacular. From the floating of the Australian dollar and the removal of exchange controls in December 1983-at the end of the first calendar year of the Hawke Government-right through to the most recent measure, the abolition of the controls on savings bank interests on new housing loans from March 1986, and this present measure, the Government has shown that it will not adopt a doctrinaire attitude to questions of this kind. It has shown that it will be flexible, it will be pragmatic as is required and it will respond, as it is required to do and as it should do, to the aspirations of the Australian people and the particular problems of the Australian economy as those problems are identified. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(8.29) —In more ways than one, perhaps, tonight is a sad night for the Reserve Bank of Australia. The Banking Legislation Amendment Bill 1986 embodies a move to abolish the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank. I want to take this opportunity at the outset to draw the attention of the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) to the fact that in his comments he was really having two bob each way on the question of deregulation. There he was, making perhaps not an unreasonable contribution to this debate, when suddenly the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur), by way of interjection, drew to his attention the possibility that he should extend that argument of deregulation to the trade union movement of this nation. Of course, that is where the honourable member for Charlton went off the rails. For the rest of his contribution he was skating on fairly thin ice. When he started to pick up that flawed document, the Government's rural economic statement of earlier this year, he was skating on very thin ice because that flawed rural economic statement did very little for the primary producers of this nation. It ignored fundamental sections of macroeconomic policy as they apply to the rural sector. Whilst it tried to address one or two specific areas at the time it was delivered by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), the outcome of that statement is that six months later many more primary producers are having great difficulties in this nation, and not all of those are due to international reasons. Some of those difficulties are due fairly and squarely to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Government of this nation. We know that what is really happening here tonight is that the honourable member for Charlton, in giving a 20-minute rendition on the Banking Legislation Amendment Bill, is strutting his stuff to move into the chair of the Treasurer. If he could do that while the Treasurer is in London, all the better. That is where he wants to end up. But I can tell the House that where he will end up is as shadow Treasurer straight after the next election. He will make a very good shadow Treasurer. I commend him for that role. He has learned in the university of hard knocks in Macquarie Street. There is no better school of education in politics in Australia than the bear pit in Macquarie Street where both the honourable member for Charlton and I served for many years. I wish him well in his career to become Australia's next shadow Treasurer. I am sure he will be a very good shadow Treasurer after the next election. I want to tell the House in all honesty that I believe that, had the honourable member for Charlton been Treasurer over the last 12 months, he would have handled the fringe benefits tax issue in a far more rational and pragmatic way. He would have eased the Government through the pains of the administration associated with the fringe benefits tax legislation, which is causing such acute trouble across Australia, particularly rural Australia. I wish the honourable member for Charlton well. I acknowledge that his contribution was not unreasonable, particularly on one aspect. He referred to the work of the honourable member for Bennelong, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), in the setting up and conduct of the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System. In that report lies the genesis for what is before the House tonight in the abolition of the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank of Australia. As these proceedings are being broadcast, I point out by way of explanation that, if it is thought by those listening that this measure will in some way reduce direct lending to individual primary producers, or for that matter reduce the general availability of loan finance to various marketing boards, as the name Rural Credits Department may suggest, that is not the case. The reality is that the role of the Rural Credits Department has contracted sharply over recent years. I will give some figures on outstanding lendings at various times. In March 1984, the figure was $419m; in July 1985, $233m; and in August 1986 it had dropped down to $18m. Many organisations, including the Australian Wheat Board, have long since ceased to use the facilities provided by the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank. The few organisations that are still using it are to be given sufficient time for the transition. They have had sufficient warning. Other speakers will refer to the number of bodies that do still use the Rural Credits Department. In that regard, in speaking about this measure, the Opposition is not unmindful of the streamlining that this will bring to the Reserve Bank and perhaps the correction that it will make to allow the Reserve Bank to fulfil its traditional, proper and fundamental role as a central bank in the developed nation of Australia. I accept the rationale behind this move but, in so doing, I want to highlight two other areas. Firstly, I refer to the need for loan finance at reasonable interest rates to be made available throughout the whole of the economy, quite apart from the rural sector of the economy. This Government cannot have it both ways in terms of interest rates and loan finance being available. Because this measure abolishes the Rural Credits Department it is appropriate that I sound the note that we know full well that the Reserve Bank is being utilised to take an active and aggressive role to prop up the Australian dollar. That is effectively being brought about by an artificially high interest rate being maintained in the Australian economy through the various mechanisms available to the central bank to ensure that this artificial increase is built into the standard interest rate component to attract funds from overseas. In turn this add-on of interest rate levels is hurting deeply particular sectors of the economy. In particular, it is hurting the rural sector. The coalition's approach has always been to say that, if one is to deregulate, one must deregulate properly. One does not have a dirty float of the Australian dollar; one has a clean float. A clean float of the Australian dollar would have given a lower interest rate at this time and at various stages in the last 12 months, including December last year when we were given figures from the Westpac Banking Corporation and elsewhere that the artificial component of the current interest rate levels was as high as eight and nine percentage points-a massive cost burden on so many primary producers battling to survive through very difficult seasonal conditions, and a massive cost burden on so many small business operators right across the economy. We know who to blame for that. It rests with the Treasurer and with the Government's macroeconomic policies. Let there be no equivocation about that. The second aspect I raise in this Bill is a specific one. The Bill abolishes totally a department of a government instrumentality, our central bank. It abolishes the Rural Credits Department. One would think in such legislation that there would be some reference to what might be happening, or has happened in recent years since business started to contract, to the staff of the Rural Credits Department. After all, the Government claims to represent in this chamber the workers of Australia. It prides itself on its links with the white collar and blue collar workers. But nowhere in the second reading speech on the Banking Legislation Amendment Bill is there any reference to what might have happened in recent years to the staff of the Rural Credits Department or to the few full time staff who may still be left. It is reasonable to assume that they have been transferred to other sections of the Reserve Bank, or that in some cases through natural attrition they have retired, so that nobody has had a job terminated and no contraction in the number of people employed by the Reserve Bank has come about through the abolition of the Rural Credits Department. If that is so one may well ask how much featherbedding is going on in the middle echelons of the Reserve Bank. I challenge the Government and the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West), who is at the table, to give the House, in his response, chapter and verse the detail to which it is entitled about what happened to the staff of the Rural Credits Department. The Government cannot have it both ways. If the staff has been transferred or if natural attrition has been utilised, that suggests a degree of featherbedding if we cannot be told that a number of positions will be abolished because of the abolition of the Rural Credits Department. On the other hand, if a number of positions have been abolished, we should be told how many and whether the Reserve Bank is contracting because of the cessation of the activities of the Rural Credits Department. I sound a warning note on the size of government and government instrumentalities. In the 15 years from 1970 to 1985 the Federal Public Service grew by 31 per cent, the six State government public services grew by an average of no less than 71 per cent and the number of staff working for government grew by 47 per cent. This country is living beyond its means. Those growth rates far outstripped population growth and growth of gross domestic product. Tonight the Parliament is abolishing the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank. How many positions is it abolishing in the Reserve Bank? I suggest that in reality it is not abolishing any positions. I challenge the Minister for Housing and Construction to state clearly and categorically whether there is a reduction in the number of positions and, if not, why not. Where will the extra featherbedding occur in the Reserve Bank following the abolition of the Rural Credits Department? The profits from the Rural Credits Department were applied to research, and indeed the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) moved an amendment expressing concern that the Government has not made alternative arrangements to replace the funds normally generated for research from the activities, now to be phased out, of the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank. I strongly support that amendment, and would point out that in these difficult times for rural industry we must have more research into salinity, diversity and productivity if our rural sector is to survive the massive pressures it is now undergoing. I again invite the Minister to explain this aspect of the Bill and to ensure that Consolidated Revenue does not gain at the expense of research-vital research in the rural sector. Research is underfunded and there have been cutbacks in recent years when such research is vital to the future of the rural economy. Finally, in considering the abolition of the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank, I pay tribute to the work it has carried out over the years, particularly in the pool financing of the Australian Wheat Board and other marketing boards and authorities. It has fulfilled a vital role. Some people believe that, because not quite so much concern has been expressed in recent months by the rural sector, somehow the rural economic crisis is perhaps not so great as it has been made out to be. I assure the House that the rural economic crisis is every bit as great as it has been made out to be, but it varies from industry to industry. A number of industries I could name face a crisis. Hundreds of primary producers are facing bankruptcy. One cannot blame international terms of trade and other international factors for all the pressures that are being brought to bear on primary producers. It is the Government which is adding to those pressures with its macroeconomic policy on interest rates and its taxes and charges across the board, particularly as they affect the price of fuel. Let us remember that there is no rebate on petrol and many primary producers do not use diesel alone, but use petrol. They are at a sharp disadvantage when using petrol on-farm off-road compared with the use of diesel on-farm off-road, where a rebate applies. At this moment, the seasonal conditions in many parts of Australia are almost perfect. The corridor from Melbourne to Albury, to Canberra and to Sydney is probably enjoying one of the best springs for many years. Let that not camouflage the economic problems of so many primary producers. Sadly, because it is a corridor travelled by many public servants, Ministers and members of Parliament, I suspect that a false attitude is gathering momentum in the corridors of Canberra during this magnificent spring over much, but not all, Australia. The fact is that in many sectors even in my electorate of Farrer, in the north of Wentworth, parts of Queensland, parts of Western Australia and other parts of Australia drought conditions still exist. There is concern that it may be thought that, in view of the excellent season in parts of Australia, particularly in the corridor from Melbourne to Albury, Canberra and Sydney, all is well in the rural sector and that the rural economic crisis has departed the scene. Nothing could be further from the truth. I sound a note of warning that people should look beyond the magnificent picture which unfolds in those areas that are enjoying this spring and realise the sharp reality of the rural economic downturn.They should not forget the contribution made by the Federal Government to that downturn, with all the added charges and taxes, and the Government's failure properly to address macroeconomic policies. Above all, they should appreciate the effect of the fringe benefits tax, with payments falling due, though slightly deferred following the pressure applied by the coalition over the sitting days of this week and in the campaign we have conducted on this tax around the nation. Unless the Government sees the error of its ways the fringe benefits tax will more correctly bear the title the farewell Bob tax. It will bring about a change of government and the elevation of the honourable member for Charlton to shadow Treasurer, and I am sure he will be very good in that position. I support the amendment to the Banking Legislation Amendment Bill. I hope that the Government will provide information on research funding, the arrangements for which are to be altered by this Bill. At the same time, I hope that it will give information on the new staffing arrangements and the possible contraction of staff or otherwise following the abolition of the Rural Credits Department. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(8.47) —I commend honourable members who have spoken in the debate on the Banking Legislation Amendment Bill. It is good to be involved in a civilised debate. I was a little concerned when the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) and the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) implied that the Australian Government was responsible for the drought in their electorates. They want to spread the blame wide and far. I know that Mr Menzies got away with it, but we will not let the Opposition get away with blaming the Government for droughts. The honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) and my good friend and colleague the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) addressed themselves to the question of the winding up of the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank of Australia. The important thing for those who are listening to this debate to observe is that that Department operated within the context of the Reserve Bank to provide funding by way of seasonal advances to rural industry. The terms and conditions of the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System and the Martin Review of the Australian Financial System indicated that we should be moving towards a more deregulated financial system. This Government has implemented that suggestion. It is interesting to observe that the coalition Government thought about that idea but did not move upon it. It was left to this Government to implement deregulation of the financial system. The honourable member for Farrer mentioned the value of the Australian dollar and interest rates. It is important to bear in mind that there have been difficulties with the value of the Australian dollar and that they are largely attributable to the decline in commodity prices. I have selected some commodity prices to illustrate the point. For example, let us consider iron ore. Between 1982 and June 1986 iron ore prices fell from $US21.90 a tonne to $US16.10 a tonne. That is a fall of 26 per cent. Between December 1981 and August 1986 the price of lead on the London Metals Exchange fell by 39.3 per cent. Between January 1984 and August 1986 the London Metals Exchange price for zinc fell by 15 per cent. A most prominent example is sugar. Between 1978 and 1981 and 1985-86 the price for Australian sugar fell from $US390 a tonne to $US126 a tonne-down some 68 per cent. That is a very marked deterioration in those commodity prices and it is reflected in our balance of payments. I am sure that people in the Australian community understand that very well. Those falls in commodity prices have tended to underpin the difficulties we have had on our external account. However, I am not without hope, because there are clear signs at present that there is an improvement in the Australian financial markets and much of that is due to the acceptance of the Budget. I wish to raise an issue that is of great concern to people in the Australian community and certainly to honourable members on this side of the House. It is also of concern to people in my electorate of Stirling in Western Australia, particularly those who seek housing. There has been continuing pressure by the savings banks to get this Government to lift the 13.5 per cent ceiling on existing housing loans. In April this year we lifted the ceiling on new loans, but this Government stands committed to retaining the ceiling for existing loans. It is a source of considerable annoyance to me and many Government members that the savings banks and, more recently, the Housing Industry Association have persisted with this campaign of pressuring the Government to lift that ceiling. From my point of view, that is non-negotiable. That 13.5 per cent ceiling is designed to ensure that Australians have access to reasonable housing finance and that we retain stability in the housing industry. That industry is a very big employer and there is a considerable multiplier effect. When one looks at the net operating profit of the banking sector, one realises there is little wonder why people in the community and in this Parliament get very annoyed at the banks when they put on this performance. Taking the year to September 1983 and comparing it with the year to September 1985, we find that the net operating profit of the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd increased by 62 per cent from $179.9m to $320.2m. For the same period Westpac Banking Corporation recorded a 53 per cent increase in profits from $241.1m in 1983 to $368.1m in 1985. The National Australia Bank Ltd made a profit of $171.2m in 1983 and $332.1m in 1985-a 94 per cent increase. The Commonwealth Bank of Australia had a net operating profit of $152.8m in 1983 and $237m in 1985-a 55 per cent increase. Let me repeat those figures across the board: ANZ, a 62 per cent increase in profit; Westpac, a 53 per cent increase; the National Australia Bank, a 94 per cent increase; the Commonwealth Bank, a 55 per cent increase. These are the same banks that are pressuring this Government to lift the ceiling on existing bank housing finance. In the face of those figures how could we look at such a proposition? This Government has some conscience about its operations and it recognises that it has a role in delivering housing to people. Yet the banking groups are pressuring Government to lift the 13.5 per cent ceiling. From the point of view of many of us on this side of the House-and the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) has recently reiterated his commitment to that position-this ceiling of 13.5 per cent is not negotiable. We do not regard the lifting of the ceiling as being an option. The banks must look at the picture they are portraying in the wider community. That picture is that the banks are looking for substantial increases in profits. We on this side of the House are not unhappy that the banking sector is making profits, but we do not believe that it can turn around and tell the Government that it should lift the ceiling on bank housing finance simply to increase its profitability further. That is not on. How would we stand in the eyes of our constituents? How would we stand in terms of recognising our responsibility to people's housing obligations? How would we stand in terms of providing stability for all those carpenters, bricklayers, tilers and others in the building industry, as well as the people who sell houses and who work in institutions connected with housing? I wish to make it very clear that from our point of view we do not regard raising the ceiling as an option at this time. Let us look at the current interest rates for 90-day bills. These rates are falling substantially on the Australian financial market and they are now below 17 per cent. The Mitsubishi Bank Australia Ltd will drop its prime rate from 19 per cent to 18.25 per cent, effective from 13 October. This will be the lowest rate offered by any of the trading banks. The Australian Bank Limited will also move its prime rate from 19.25 per cent to 19 per cent, effective from tomorrow. If we look further into the financial market, we see the Australian merchant bankers bill rates. The quotation for the 90-day bill rate on 1 October was 18.41 per cent and on 8 October it was 17.75 per cent. The 120-day bill was quoted at 18.33 per cent on 1 October and at 17.63 per cent on 8 October. The 180-day bill was 18.07 per cent on 1 October and 17.27 per cent on 8 October. We are seeing a downward trend in interest rates. The Budget strategy of reducing pressure on the money markets by going for zero outlays is beginning to reflect already in the Australian finance market, coupled with the encouragement that must be seen in the increase in the value of the Australian dollar and a general stabilisation and improvement in commodity prices. I support my argument by looking at the authorised dealers' bank bill rates. The quotation on a 30-day bill was 17.80 per cent on 1 October and this has fallen to 17.25 per cent on 8 October. For the 90-day bill the quotation was 17.75 per cent for 1 October and 17 per cent for 8 October. The quotation for the 180-day bill was 17.35 per cent on 1 October and 16.5 per cent on 8 October. Those clear financial indicators in the market show that the trend is downwards. Let us also look at the flow of funds into that sector, the savings ratio in the banking sector, where there is a very adequate supply of finance. The annual rate of savings for 1985-86 is 14.6 per cent compared with 15 per cent in 1984-85, 15.1 per cent in 1983-84, 13.3 per cent in 1982-83 and 14.4 per cent in 1981-82. One sees from the savings ratio that there is an adequate supply of funds in the banking sector. Let me deal with the whole picture. There is an adequate supply of funds in the banking sector and a downward trend in financial rates. I have quoted those rates as of today and they show very clearly that the trend is down. When we look at these factors and then turn to the question of the net operation profit of the banking sector, we come to a very clear conclusion: It is not on to deregulate the existing bank finance rates for housing. That sharp contrast must be drawn between those of us who do not support deregulation of the housing finance market and the Opposition which does support it. We could not countenance that degree of uncertainty and threat to the average Australian home buyer. We regard the ceiling as non-negotiable. We recognise that the Opposition does not have a finance policy or a monetary policy. Even in that context Opposition members have not committed themselves recently to deregulation of the housing interest market. We would not countenance such a deregulation because we believe that the matter is far too important for the one million people out there who have housing finance. We believe that we have a responsibility to try to protect them, and we will do so. The clear message from this debate tonight must be that we on this side of the House do not regard the housing finance ceiling as negotiable, given the high level of banking profitability that I quoted earlier. In conclusion let me return to those figures. The ANZ Banking Group made an increase in its net operating profit of 62 per cent, Westpac 53 per cent, the National Australia Bank 94 per cent, and the Commonwealth Bank 55 per cent. When those figures are juxtaposed with the reasonable savings ratio of 14.6 per cent for 1985-86 and are put in the context of the fact that there has been a substantial amount of money lent for housing, they show the overall picture. We regard as very important, a benchmark in our approach to housing and the social structure, our wish to provide security for Australian home buyers who have existing loans. In closing my remarks in this debate I want to make it very clear to those listening to and those who have participated in this debate that the 13.5 per cent ceiling will remain in place. We regard the overall context of the Government's fiscal, monetary and exchange rate policies as delivering the goods. The Australian dollar is improving in value, we are getting the J-curve effect into place, commodity prices are improving and the interest rates I quoted today on 90-day bills are below 17 per cent. There is a clear indication of a downward trend in interest rates. It is pleasing to be on this side of the House and be able to talk about these matters. I can assure the Australian community that we have a great deal of confidence and we can give people an assurance about our intentions on housing interest rates on existing loans. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Acting Treasurer)(9.01) —In winding up the debate on the Banking Legislation Amendment Bill 1986 I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate. The Opposition has moved an amendment to the second reading. The Government does not accept the amendment because, as the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) has just said, there is no credibility at all in the suggestion in this amendment that the Government will not replace the funds normally generated for rural research. In fact, in my second reading speech I made it quite clear that those funds have been allocated and we are expecting more funds for rural research in the future than were generated by the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank of Australia in the past. The Government does not accept the amendment and commends the Bill to the House. Amendment negatived. 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. (Budget Debate) Debate resumed from 22 September, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Carlton had moved by way of amendment: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not opposing the passage of this Bill, the House condemns the Government for- (1) the failure of the Budget to tackle Australia's fundamental economic problems, namely: (a) the record and rising level of overseas debt; (b) excessively high levels of government spending and taxation; (c) an inflation rate 4 times the average of our major trading partners; (d) interest rates once again approaching 20%; (e) a wages policy that does not take account of the capacity of individual enterprises to pay, and (f) the pernicious effects of the anti-business, anti-investment taxes such as the capital gains tax and the fringe benefits tax, and (2) the loss of Australia's AAA international credit rating following the failure of the Budget'. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Acting Treasurer)(9.03) —I understand that the Opposition believes that we ought to have more than three weeks debate on this measure and will go through the motions accordingly. Actually, I will not be winding up the debate because the Treasurer (Mr Keating) introduced Appropriation Bill (No. 1) and I have not spoken on it. However, in fact I have to give notice to the House that this is the end of the second reading debate on the Bill. Mr Donald Cameron —That's absolutely disgraceful! Mr HURFORD —Of course, we will be going into Committee and members will be able to deal with the matters department by department. It is just a charade and a nonsense that I am hearing from honourable members on the other side of the House who are pretending that the debate has not ranged widely enough. It has. The issues have been canvassed and further opportunities for debate have been provided in the many Budget related Bills that have been brought on for debate. I know that because, as the Minister Assisting the Treasurer, I introduced a lot of those Budget related Bills and I have spoken on the winding up of the Bills. I know just how long the House has debated not only Appropriation Bill (No. 1) but also the Budget related Bills. Over recent years it has suited the House to group items of proposed expenditure. A list showing the groupings of the departments and a proposed order for dealing with them has been circulated to honourable members and has been agreed to by the Opposition. We will be moving into the Committee stage on the winding up of the second debate and every attempt will be made during the course of the debate in the Committee of the Whole House to ensure that there is sufficient flexibility to vary the program to ensure that shadow Ministers and others with a particular interest in a matter are accommodated in the Committee stage. Once again, the Government is being eminently reasonable. Of course three weeks is more than long enough to debate this Appropriation Bill. Already the sensible elements of this whole Budget have been well accepted in this country and the economy is improving no end. I move: That the question be now put. Mr Donald Cameron —The Government cannot do that. It has not been three weeks; we have been away. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The question is: That the question be now put. There can be no debate on the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question now is: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Carlton's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (The Deputy Speaker-Mr A. C. Rocher) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 49 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 18 —— 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. Klugman, R. E. Bowen, Lionel Langmore, J. V. Brown, John Lee, M. Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J. Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J. Campbell, G. McLeay, LeoCharles, 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. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scott, J. L. Gear, G. Simmons, D. W. Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H. Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R. Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C. Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E. Hayden, W. G. Uren, T. Holding, A. C. West, S. J. Hollis, C. Willis, R. Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Hurford, C. J. Aldred, K. J. Hodges, J. C. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hunt, R. J. D. Beale, J. H. Jull, D. F. Blunt, C. W. Katter, R. C. Braithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B. Brown, N. A. McArthur, F. SBurr, M. A. McGauran, P. J. Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T. Cameron, Donald Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Ewen Miles, C. G. Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C. Cobb, M. R. Nehl, G. B. Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R. Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K. Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDowner, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M. Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J. Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F. Everingham, P. A. E. Sinclair, I. McC. Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N. Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M. Fisher, Peter Sullivan, K. J. Hall, Steele Watson, D. J. H. Halverson, R. G. Webster, A. P. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Lamb, A. H. Shack, P. D. Dubois, S. G. Hawker, D. P. M. Jones, Barry Cameron, IanPunch, G. F. Wilson, I. B. C. Brown, John Moore, J. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(9.15) —I would like to talk about the fact that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Acting Treasurer (Mr Hurford), who is at the table, has effectively gagged this debate and has claimed that the House has been given three weeks in which to discuss the Bill. The reason that this is being done is to allow the Government to bring fringe benefits tax Bill (No. 2) before the Parliament because Bill (No. 1) has been a total and complete farce. Motion (by Mr Hurford) put: That the question be now put. The House divided. (The Deputy Speaker-Mr A. C. Rocher) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 50 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— 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. Klugman, R. E. Bowen, Lionel Langmore, J. V. Brown, John Lee, M. Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J. Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J. Campbell, G. McLeay, LeoCharles, 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. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scott, J. L. Gear, G. Simmons, D. W. Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H. Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R. Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C. Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E. Hayden, W. G. Uren, T. Holding, A. C. West, S. J. Hollis, C. Willis, R. Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Hurford, C. J. Aldred, K. J. Hodges, J. C. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hunt, R. J. D. Beale, J. H. Jull, D. F. Blunt, C. W. Katter, R. C. Braithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B. Brown, N. A. McArthur, F. S. Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J. Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T. Cameron, Donald Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Ewen Miles, C. G. Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C. Cobb, M. R. Nehl, G. B. Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R. Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K. Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDowner, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M. Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J. Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F. Everingham, P. A. E. Sinclair, I. McC. Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N. Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M. Fisher, Peter Sullivan, K. J. Hall, Steele Watson, D. J. H. Halverson, R. G. Webster, A. P. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D. Lamb, A. H. Shack, P. D. Dubois, S. G. Hawker, D. P. M. Jones, Barry Cameron, IanPunch, G. F. Wilson, I. B. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The CHAIRMAN —In accordance with standing order 226, the Committee will first consider Schedule 3 of the Bill. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Acting Treasurer)(9.22) —I suggest, Mr Chairman, that it might suit the convenience of the Committee to consider the items of proposed expenditure in the order and groupings shown in the following schedule, which has been circulated to honourable members: Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Department of the Special Minister of State-together. Department of Transport, Department of Aviation-together. Department of Community Services, Department of Social Security, Department of Health, Department of Veterans' Affairs-together. Department of the Treasury, Department of Finance, Advance to the Minister for Finance-together. Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce-together. Attorney-General's Department. Department of Defence, Department of Foreign Affairs-together. Department of Trade, Department of Resources and Energy, Department of Primary Industry-together. Department of Education, Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Department of Aboriginal Affairs-together. Department of Housing and Construction, Department of Local Government and Administrative Services-together. Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment, Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Department of Territories-together. Department of Communications, Department of Science-together. The consideration of the items in groups of departments has met the convenience of the Committee in past years. I also take the opportunity to indicate to the Committee that the proposed order for consideration of departments' estimates has been discussed with the Opposition, which has raised no objection to what has been proposed. The CHAIRMAN —Is it the wish of the Committee to consider the items of proposed expenditure in the order suggested by the Minister? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Schedule 3. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Proposed expenditure, $130,872,000. Department of the Special Minister of State Proposed expenditure, $278,939,000. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(9.24) —In the few minutes that are allotted to me I should like to say something about the Department of the Special Minister of State, and particularly about the National Crime Authority. One of the great things about Australia is that we have organised our affairs so that the opportunity for political misuse of the coercive powers of the police are limited or non-existent. We have striven to avoid the sorts of things that we find in police States, and we have the National Crime Authority. The Authority has been supported by the Opposition, but we have been critical of the absence of certain powers in the Authority and equally we have been critical of the potential for political misuse that exists in the Authority. This is not merely my own view or that of the Opposition. I shall cite the remarks of Mr Moffitt QC, formerly Mr Justice Moffitt of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, who in 1973 and 1974 conducted an inquiry into the infiltration into Australia of overseas crime. He was deeply critical of the way in which the National Crime Authority Act is structured. He said: An inquiry sought by a Government of one political party could involve persons inside or outside the State who are members or associates of an opposing political party, whether in opposition there or in government elsewhere. It could reveal and report matters damaging to the interests of an opposing party in government in another State. Some of those around this House would say: `Really, is it possible that that kind of thing could happen in this country of ours?'. Let me remind the Committee of how the National Crime Authority works. A reference can be instituted by the Commonwealth Government, and the person who institutes a reference on behalf of the Commonwealth Government is the Special Minister of State now, alas, absent from the Chamber and no doubt enjoying his fiftieth birthday. If a reference is issued, which gives to the National Crime Authority its special functions, the Authority has coercive powers because it is a special investigation. For the purposes of the Commonwealth instituting a reference, it need only consult the States. I remind the Committee that when it comes to a vote on a reference, there is a majority in the States and in the Commonwealth which is controlled by the Labor Party. Questions as to a reference are decided by a majority. However, if the reference is against the interests of a State or against those of the Commonwealth, the State or the Commonwealth that is the subject of the proposed reference may blackball it. There are currently seven references only before the National Crime Authority. Six have come from the Commonwealth as sole references and one is a joint Commonwealth-State reference. What does that mean? Does it mean that we have any concern here about the misuse of coercive powers or any concern about the possibility of political influence on the conduct of the National Crime Authority? Well, one would think not until yesterday. Yesterday, the Special Minister of State, who I regret is absent from the Chamber, answered a Dorothy Dix question, which we know is a question which is addressed to a Minister by a member of his own Party at the invitation of the Minister, with full knowledge of the terms of the question so that the Minister can give a considered and political reply. The question was asked by the honourable member for Makin (Mr Duncan), and it was as follows: 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? Let me pause on those words: . . . raised with him for investigation by the National Crime Authority? As I have said, that Authority is one for which the Minister is responsible. What did he say? One would think that a defamation settlement has nothing to do with the National Crime Authority. He said: 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-- I emphasise the words `at this time'-- no matters have been raised with me which would involve consideration by the National Crime Authority. What are the implications of that answer? The first is that he had considered the reference to the National Crime Authority. The reference against whom? It was against a formidable opponent of the Labor Government, with an election in the offing. Today, the Minister, in his frank, casual, slap-dash and dangerous manner, said that we will hear more about the matter. Today we heard a little more about the elections in Queensland. He offered some gratuitous advice to anybody who might be minded to bring defamation actions in Queensland as a consequence of an electoral advertisement. I do not know what was in the advertisement. I am not concerned with it. But it was no casual statement made by the Minister yesterday. It was a deliberate course of conduct. He was saying that he considered the reference to the National Crime Authority. He was saying that there might be something in it because he said: . . . at this time no matters have been raised with me which would involve consideration by the National Crime Authority. He was saying that of the Premier of one of the States of this country with whom the Labor Party is locked in a political battle. He was saying it for the deliberate purpose of besmirching the reputation of the Premier. No other interpretation can be placed on his remarks. He was saying quietly, not overtly, that there might be something in it. He was not shutting the door to an investigation by the National Crime Authority. Could anything be more damaging, more deeply contemptuous of the process of law enforcement in this country? There is only one thing that the Minister can do, although we know that he will not. He could withdraw. He could say that what he did was a misuse of Parliament; that he falsely suggested, in the clever way in which he did, that possibly at some time in the future there may be a case for examining the Queensland Premier by the National Crime Authority. This was a gross, dangerous and wrong abuse of his position. He should come into the chamber and explain exactly what he meant by that answer. The prospects are that we will get nothing apart from a trivial joke and avoidance of the issue. Many serious issues have been avoided by that man before now. We will see a few more serious issues avoided in the future. Could there be a more serious issue before this chamber than the covert suggestion by the Minister responsible for the administration of the National Crime Authority that at some time in the future he would keep in consideration the prospect of looking at the Queensland Premier through the glass provided to him by the National Crime Authority? The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Darling) — Order! The honourable member's time has elapsed. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(9.35) —Tonight we have an opportunity to examine the appropriations department by department. I shall look at the expenditure set forth for the Department of the Special Minister of State. In response to the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), there are very strong reports about that the present Premier of Queensland will become a member of this chamber. He has said that it is his ambition to enter this Parliament. If that gentlemen does enter this Parliament, he will have to declare all his assets, as every member of this chamber has, and we will all know what settlement he received and what money he has allegedly invested in a company earning very high interest on the short term money market. I feel that it would be of some benefit to get on to the Estimates, because the Committee is dealing with them department by department. In turning to some of the minor items in the Budget under the vote of the Department of the Special Minister of State, I mention the allocation for national symbols. It is only a small amount-$259,000-but it is an important allocation for members and senators. It is particularly important for honourable members who arrange for local schools, churches, clubs, and charities in their electorates to obtain Australian flags, portraits of the Queen, tapes of the national anthem-Advance Australia Fair-and so on, free of charge. That excellent scheme is much appreciated. Local schools, guide groups, scouting groups and clubs appreciate being able to obtain an Australian flag. It was proposed that a limit be applied to the number of flags available to members of parliament. Fortunately, the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) decided not to press on with such a restriction. I have said in this chamber before that I believe that free copies of the Australian Constitution should be included among the national symbols. I have always contended that when people assume Australian citizenship-whether they are British, Italian, Vietnamese, Greek or Lebanese-they should obtain free of charge a copy of the Australian Constitution. That is the basic legal document on which our society rests. It sets forth one's right to trial by jury and one's right, if aggrieved, to appeal at law against any Commonwealth decision. It is a basic document that should be given to all people who become Australian citizens. I commend this small extension in expenditure to the Minister to be considered in the next Budget. Other important items that are funded from the Minister's allocation are the joint Commonwealth-State Task Force on Drugs and the political exchange program. The political exchange program is very important to our near neighbours in the Pacific and Asia. Many of the Pacific countries are small and their economies will not allow young political leaders or people who have entered Parliament or public life to visit Australia to appreciate some of the advantages of taking part in a political exchange program. An amount of nearly $1m has been allocated for the Standing Advisory Committee on Commonwealth-State Co-operation for Protection against Violence. That is essentially $1m for its operating expenses. The problem I raise tonight was drawn to my attention by a constituent whose daughter was attacked while operating one of the after hours money dispensing machines at a credit union office in my electorate. Officially, the machines are called automatic teller machines. The young lady was attacked while operating a machine at 8 o'clock one evening. Admittedly, the attack occurred in the winter time but she was very lucky to escape with her life. She had no money on her, and the money had not come out of the machine. I have put it to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) that the banks which set up such machines cannot ignore their responsibilities. They should be allowed to establish automatic teller machines only in areas where a person operating them can do so with reasonable security. I draw this problem to the attention of the Special Minister of State as he has responsibility for the Australian Federal Police and the Standing Advisory Committee on Commonwealth-State Co-operation for Protection against Violence. At my instigation, this matter has been brought before a committee. The Treasurer pointed out to me that it is called the Electronic Funds Transfer Working Group. It has looked into this matter but has washed its hands of the whole problem and has said that it is up to the customer. If the customer goes to an after hours automatic teller, he has got to watch out. That is not good enough. The banks make very big profits and they must be responsible for an 18-year-old girl who, in all good faith and innocence, goes to withdraw some money for the weekend and is attacked and robbed. I trust that the Minister will bring the matter I have raised before the Standing Advisory Committee on Commonwealth-State Co-operation for Protection against Violence. Other grants in aid paid through the Department of the Special Minister of State are to the Royal Humane Society of Australasia, the Australian Institute of Political Science and the Australian Institute of Public Administration. An amount of $111,300 was budgeted for grants for non-government international conferences held in Australia. The Herbert Vere Evatt Memorial Foundation receives a contribution of $250,000. The Minister's department also covers the costs of the Remuneration Tribunal. There is an allocation of $136m for the Australian Federal Police, and an allocation of $36m for the Australian Electoral Commission. Under our predecessors, the Australian Electoral Commission, or the old Electoral Office, was somewhat of a Cinderella of Commonwealth departments. This Government is proud to say that it has revitalised the Australian Electoral Office. It is now being called the Australian Electoral Commission. It has given the officers in that Commission a real sense of purpose and career. Their working conditions have been upgraded in many cases-certainly in the electorate of Lowe, and I am sure, elsewhere. The Commission has responsibilities for conducting industrial ballots and many other matters which come before it. There is an allocation of nearly $7m for electoral enrolments. This is a very big problem because all members of Parliament go to citizenship ceremonies. They see many people becoming Australian citizens. We all hope that these people fill out the necessary form to become voters in our electorates. It is to the credit of the Australian Electoral Commission that the staff does chase up people and gets them on the electoral role. The system does work. We have a very efficient and very effective electoral system. It has the occasional hiccup, as happened in the last Federal election, particularly in New South Wales, where there was great emphasis in advertising on the Senate vote to the detriment of the votes for the House of Representatives. This resulted in an unusually high informal vote in the House of Representatives elections. The Special Minister of State has responsibility for royal commissions and inquiries. I note that nearly all of the royal commissions and inquiries are being phased out. The inquiry into the taxation of gold mining receives only a small allocation. Similarly, the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Telephone Interception and the Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests in Australia are also being phased out. An amount of only $5,000 has been allocated for the Greek conspiracy case, although in the past year the expenditure was nearly $500,000. That is a very good thing. The National Crime Authority, which is under the Minister's jurisdiction, has been allocated a very big expenditure of over $14m. Last year, there was expenditure of $11.4m. This has arisen from the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and the great work done by Mr Costigan. I commend the Minister and draw his attention to the two matters I have raised tonight. I believe that copies of the Australian Constitution should be made available for everyone who becomes an Australian citizen, and copies could even be distributed in Australian schools. Young people come here and are feted, but they have no knowledge of the Australian Constitution. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(9.45) —In committee on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) we are discussing cognately two departments, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Department of the Special Minister of State. I was fascinated when listening to the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) when he said how good it was that the Australian Electoral Commission had upgraded accommodation in his electorate. I am sure that the Electoral Commission also thinks so. I could not help but think, as I was pondering the subjects that I am going to address this evening, what little joy that is for a lot of other people in the community in view of the sort of knocks they have taken in this Budget. The section to which I am going to particularly address myself is the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and the provisions which specifically relate to women who get little joy indeed out of this Budget. Last year, after the 1985 Budget, the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women (Senator Ryan), caused to have circulated to members a document which outlined the effect of the 1985-86 Budget on women. There were many Press releases which I am sure you remember, Madam Chairwoman, on the subject of how good the Hawke Government was to women and families. This year, there has not been a word on that subject from the Government. There is no document outlining the effect of the Budget on women-or if there is, it has not reached my office. Perhaps I am no longer on the list; I certainly would have taken note of it. So I have had to go through certain documents and try to track the matter down. In the time available of less than 10 minutes that has been allotted to speak on this Bill, it is not going to be possible for me to cover all the areas that could be covered in different sections of the Budget, but I am going to cover the subject of specific appropriations under the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and also some other areas as they link in with it. We see in the appropriation for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that the Appropriation for the Office of the Status of Women has been reduced by 12 1/2 per cent. However, we are given a Budget inflation figure of approximately eight per cent-at least that. One is always interested in the reduction of expenditures at a time when a significant inflation rate and general government reductions are anticipated. As I have said, the Office of the Status of Women has undergone a reduction. It is apparently not having its offices refurbished as is the Electoral Commission in the electorate of Lowe. The Interim Affirmative Action Agency also had its appropriation reduced by 40 per cent on last year. Only a few months ago we passed affirmative action legislation in this Parliament. It is a new program. There was, of course, a pilot program, but as part of a program under an Act, it is a new initiative by the Government. The Opposition supported that. I spoke in support of that initiative in debate in this House. Those two single appropriations, which come under the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, have both suffered significant reductions, which compares rather badly with an increase for the Department of 31.9 per cent. These appropriations are not down because the Department is down. Certain departments have gone down in this Budget in the Government's exercise, but not the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet; it has done rather nicely, with an increase of 31.9 per cent. But the two specific items that relate to women are significantly down. It is no wonder that we do not hear very much from the Government about women in the 1986 Budget. However, other organisations have had a bit to say about this Budget and how it affects women. They have put out documents. The first I refer to is a document prepared by the Australian Council of Social Security entitled `1986-87 Federal Budget Community Sector Briefing Notes'. Again I emphasise that my time is brief, so I can only, in a sense, skim over the issues that are raised. I do want to quote from this document. The other document that I will be referring to is entitled `Women in the 1986-87 Budget' put out by Women's Electoral Lobby. Neither of them is complimentary to the Government. Quoting from the ACOSS document, under the heading `Women' it is stated: The Budget will exacerbate existing inequalities and leave Australia unable to pick up the recovery when the present crisis is over. The Budget is particularly damaging to those on the margins, young women trying to enter the workforce, low paid women workers, and those attempting to reduce their dependence on pensions and benefits will be hit by reduced job opportunities, reduced options for training, and reduced incomes for those least able to afford it. Unfortunately, the disadvantages will extend to children of largely female one parent families. A contractionary budget affects the disadvantaged most, and women are still structurally disadvantaged. The document says that particular problems include, amongst other things, excluding single parents from the tertiary education assistance scheme if they are on the pension, and delaying the poverty trap reduction program. It has always been the function of the Office of the Status of Women to advise the Government on the effect of its policies or intended legislation, particularly as they impinge on women and their families. It can be seen that the Office of the Status of Women clearly has not done very well this year when one adds up all the decisions made by the Government that will adversely affect women and particularly disadvantaged women in the community and in those disadvantaged sectors in which women form the great majority. The Office of the Status of Women has been singularly unsuccessful in persuading the Government to accept what I am sure was very good advice on the subject. I would hate to think what its fate will be next year when it gets an even lower appropriation and fewer resources to advise the Government. I also wonder, in view of the treatment of the Office, what will happen with the affirmative action policy and what it is supposed to do for women in the community enhancing their ability to help themselves so that fewer of them will be dependent on the Government. Let me elaborate a little on those points of concern that I have raised. The ACOSS document states: ACOSS deplores the proposal announced in the budget that pensioners and beneficiaries will no longer be entitled to receive Tertiary Education Allowances. In the proposal, pensioners commencing studies in 1987 will only be eligible for $15 per week allowance. This presumably is supposed to cover extra costs such as child care and transport. Compared to the current arrangements a single pensioner with two children in full-time education will be $23 per week worse off. This is an excessive disincentive to people wishing to improve their long term employment prospects and places further hardship on already overstressed and ill- supported persons. I can tell the Government, as I am sure the Office of the Status of Women has until it was blue in the face, that that sort of action is extremely counter-productive for women. We hear a lot these days about how the Government wants to reduce costs in the area of the supporting parent's benefit. Indeed, a document on this was tabled yesterday which will be philosophically interesting to look at in respect of the assumptions it makes about women in our community. I say to the Government here and now, as has been said endless times in the past-I am sure it has been said by the Office of the Status of Women-if obstacles are put in the way of education, training and access to child care for disadvantaged people, we are ensuring that they are locked into social welfare and cannot find a way out of it even though many of them would want to. There is a delightful statement in Budget Paper No. 1 in relation to how the Government will behave to get down the supporting parent's benefit costs. It is a wonderfully sensitive statement which I hasten to get into the record. I quote: The Government has decided to improve the administration of supporting parent's benefit and widow's pensions by more regular reporting, to ensure continuing eligibility, and counselling which will assist the recipients to find work and thus reduce outlays. From October 1986 recipients will be required to report to the Department of Social Security on their circumstances each month during their first three months on benefit and quarterly thereafter. What a wonderful thing to apply to a widow's pension! Within a month of a woman applying for a widow's pension, shortly after widowhood, she has to face up and explain whether her circumstances have changed. She will have to do that monthly for a while and then quarterly thereafter. Such is the insensitivity displayed in this Budget document. I reiterate that I am sure that the Office of the Status of Women would have counselled against this type of activity. I hope in debate on other departments to indicate some other areas where the Government has shown a total insensitivity to the position of women, particularly disadvantaged women-in this case bereaved women-in our society. All I can say is that I wish the Office of the Status of Women well. It will be a lot tougher and leaner at the end of the next twelve months because if it is to operate at all and make any sort of input it will certainly be in a three-legged race within this appropriation. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GAYLER(Leichhardt)(9.55) —I preface my comments this evening on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1986-87 by indicating that I will deliberately concentrate my remarks on the very important role of the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) and the positive things that he has done concerning the Australian Federal Police and the National Crime Authority. This is a subject which honourable members opposite have either deliberately or negligently failed to address during this debate. I turn initially to the Australian Federal Police. I think that everyone-I do not speak just of people in this chamber, but everyone within this nation-is aware of the tight budgetary considerations involved in the 1986-87 Budget. This Government, while focusing strongly on the need to impose tight financial discipline, remains committed to the maintenance of its law and order programs, something that those opposite for so many years when in control of the Treasury bench preferred to turn their backs on. In line with the strong public commitment made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) during the 1984 election campaign, the Government has maintained real-I emphasise the word `real'-overall expenditure for the Australian Federal Police, particularly in 1986-87, while increasing further the actual level of available staff resources. It is interesting to note that this Government, since taking office, has increased Australian Federal Police manpower by some 462 officers, which represents an increase of approximately 18 per cent. A further increase of 100 in the financial year 1986-87 will bring the increase to just over 21 per cent. I pose these questions: Is that not a real commitment? Is that not an attack on crime in Australia at what one might call an international level? We have a clear and responsible commitment by this Government. The responsibility of the Australian Federal Police, especially at airports, as defined in the national anti-terrorist plan, is to contain an incident until the State police response force arrives. As Australians we are fortunate in that such an incident has not arisen in Australia. Let us hope that such a situation will never arise or at least not for many years. The plan has been agreed to by the Commonwealth and all State governments. I believe that the Australian Federal Police manpower allocated to airports is consistent with both the requirements of the Government's anti-terrorist plan and the present threat assessment by intelligence agencies. The alleged Australian Federal Police Association statement that there is a total lack of protection from terrorist attacks on international airports is exaggerated and arrant nonsense. Australia does not have a domestic terrorist threat of the nature found in the centres of terrorist activity in Europe and in the Middle East. In line with the Government's commitment to improve the effectiveness and professionalism of the Australian Federal Police, it commissioned a joint management review and a review of Federal Police resources. As a result, a number of organisational and administrative changes have been implemented. I will outline just very briefly some of them. The Government issued to the Australian Federal Police in August 1985 a new charter of objectives and priorities, emphasising the Federal Police development as a federal investigative body. Secondly, routine guarding functions have been removed to other agencies. Thirdly, a five-year deployment plan has been developed to ensure the most efficient use of the resources available. As a consequence, Australian Federal Police resources have been redeployed to effect significant increases in staff resources devoted to the high priority tasks of countering drug trafficking-something that everyone in this country finds appalling-organised crime, large scale fraud against Commonwealth revenue and the provision of criminal intelligence. The achievements of the Australian Federal Police are cogent; they are clearly before the people of this country. One has only to look at major drug seizures, major fraud investigations, improved domestic and overseas liaison and intelligence gathering capabilities, better co- operation with other Commonwealth agencies, improved terms and conditions of employment for Australian Federal Police members and new accommodation in Canberra for the majority of AFP headquarters staff to see the positive initiatives of this Government. I now turn briefly to the National Crime Authority. It has a full work load and greatly increased resources, especially when compared with the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. The Government has given the Authority the resources it needs to continue the fight against organised crime and drug offences. In November 1985 25 additional staff members were allocated, and a further 30 this year, bringing the total to 258. In addition, 70 police officers and 14 clerical and other staff are on secondment from the States. A key factor in the successful functioning of the National Crime Authority has been the Government's commitment to co-operation with the States. All of the States and the Northern Territory have passed underpinning legislation which gives the National Crime Authority powers to investigate State offences. Such co-operation through regular NCA intergovernmental committee meetings has resulted in several States granting references to the NCA. The Authority has had references on seven matters, six of which are in conjunction with one or more States. The National Crime Authority already has a number of runs on the board. At 30 June it had been responsible for laying 156-I repeat 156-charges against 41 people, a large number of which relate to drugs. The Opposition continues to assert that the NCA lacks sufficient powers. The fact is that the NCA can investigate on its own motion any matter involving organised crime. Only if it wishes to use its special powers does the NCA approach the intergovernmental committee for approval. No such approval has been refused, once again illustrating the high level of Commonwealth-State co-operation that exists. Any change to this approach would result in a withdrawal of State co-operation, which would be a crippling blow to the effectiveness of the NCA. I have had very little time to mention the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. One of the most undereffective areas in Australia at present is that associated with youth. This Government is committed to tackle and has proven its ability to tackle that problem. In the near future, with traineeships and with the Priority One: Young Australia program coming into full flow, I have no doubt that the apportionment, the allocation to the area of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet-- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(10.05) —Tonight I wish to speak about the portfolio of the Special Minister of State and in particular about the Australian Federal Police. Having heard the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) speak, I would like to remind him of the raging success that the Government's policy on youth, the Priority One: Young Australia program, has been. What a raging success it has been! It has been one of the great failures of this country in recent times. I wish to speak about the Australian Federal Police. As honourable members will know, the number one priority of the Australian Federal Police is the war against drugs. The reason for that is that drugs in our society are slowly but surely eroding the very fabric of our society and indeed, it could be said, actually destroying our society. For an example of how bad the Australian situation could be, one has only to look at the United States of America at the moment. On Capital 7 the other day I happened to watch the television documentary entitled `48 Hours on Crack Street' filmed in the United States. If that documentary does not cause concern in every human being on this earth, I do not know what would. It showed that the situation in America is out of hand and that, if we do not do something here to fight properly the drug problem, what is happening in America and some other countries will happen here. Many people will say: `How could that be possible? Surely the drug problem in Australia is bad enough as it is.' The problem in Australia may be bad but it could certainly be a lot worse than it currently is. That is why it is so important that Australians be prepared to fight the drug war. That is why it is so important that we have a very effective and operational Australian Federal Police force. Earlier this year in April the Government launched its drug offensive. It was launched by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Since April we have already seen that the drug offensive has been basically proved a fraud. In the House today the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) detailed a number of criticisms of the coalition's task force on drugs. I have made a personal explanation about that. His statement had no credibility because we have been able to prove that it is wrong. When the Prime Minister launched the drug offensive, he said that he would do much to increase and improve law enforcement through the AFP. When he launched the drug offensive he said: The enforcement measures which are now being set up by the States and Territories include detection capabilities and penalties which are stronger than ever before. And there are other measures being adopted on a national scale. What has happened to all these new measures? Where are the stronger penalties and laws? I say to honourable members that they have not eventuated. We have seen a great deal of posturing and heard talk of telephone tapping powers being increased. But what has happened? That has been buried in a parliamentary committee. Anyone who knows anything about the Parliament would know that, if one wants to bury something for a long time, if not forever, one gives it to a parliamentary committee to deal with. That is what has happened to the telephone tapping powers. We have heard of the recent initiative from the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) on access to taxation records. But that is all talk; there is no legislation before the House. No legislation has been put before the House as a result of the Prime Minister's promises to increase law enforcement that he made when launching the drug offensive in April this year. At the moment there is also a redraft of the Crimes Act. That was supposed to be a matter to be treated urgently. It started 12 months ago. But what has happened to it? We have heard nothing about it. Today I asked a question of the Attorney-General about the Taillon case which involved an international drug trafficker who brought drugs through Australia but was released because our laws contained a giant loophole. That occurred 12 months ago and the Attorney-General promised Australians that an urgent review of our laws would be undertaken, that the matter would be settled once and for all and that such a situation would not happen again. Yet today in the House we heard that, despite the passing of 12 months and despite the fact that the Attorney-General acquired an independent legal opinion that stated that the Director of Public Prosecutions was wrong in that case, no legislation has been brought before the House. Just how bad the drug situation is in Australia is driven home when one reads the report by the International Narcotics Control Board for 1985 from which I quote a passage: Traffickers are increasingly attempting to use Australia both as an illicit market and as a trans-shipment point for heroin destined for Europe and the United States. Organised crime is becoming more and more involved in the growing international traffic and in its financing. That is what the International Narcotics Control Board sees as happening in Australia. Organised crime and drugs are becoming worse in this country. The measures that are being taken by the Government are not enough. In April last year the Government had a drug summit out of which we were promised the enactment of legislation to permit more effective search of persons for concealed drugs. Since then the powers of the Australian Federal Police to search people for drugs have been reduced. Today one of the most popular methods of bringing drugs into Australia is to hide them inside body cavities. In recent times the Australian Federal Police have had their powers to authorise body inspections reduced. Furthermore, it is illegal compulsorily to X-ray persons one suspects have drugs hidden inside them. One of the other popular ways of bringing drugs into the country is to insert them inside condoms and to swallow them. But the police are not allowed to take X-rays and must try to bluff those concerned to have an X-ray. The police need powers of that sort. The Government gave an indication that it would give the police those powers, but they have not been given. Nothing-absolutely nothing-has happened since the launching of the Drug Offensive. The Australian Federal Police have some serious problems. Recently the first shipment of crack came into Australia. We know what crack is and how dangerous it is. One would have thought that, as this was the first shipment, it should have been leapt upon to try to get the chain before it becomes widespread across Australia. The crack came in through the mail system. The AFP carried out a surveillance operation of the post office to which the mail was sent to try to capture the next link in the chain but, because of budgetary restraints, overtime limits forced the police to restrict surveillance of that post office to between the hours of 6 a.m. and 5 p.m. Unfortunately, the man came and emptied his post office box in the evening and the link in the chain was lost. So the first shipment of crack into Australia disappeared. We do not know to whom it went. Why? Because the budgetary restrictions on the AFP meant that it could not carry out proper surveillance techniques. The overtime funding for the AFP will run out by Christmas of this year with still six months of the financial year to go. What are we to do for surveillance in the six months after the funding runs out? Another problem is an acute shortage of experienced personnel in the AFP. Officers are spread too thinly throughout the force. There s a shortage of vehicles, particularly surveillance vehicles. There is a ludicrous regulation that such vehicles are not allowed to have flashing lights and sirens. If a police vehicle is in pursuit of a drug trafficker through the streets, it has to stop at traffic lights. If the person who is being chased goes through the lights, the police have no ability, because their vehicle has no flashing light or siren, to go through the lights and break the traffic rules. A change could easily be brought about to give more power to the police. The AFP has been looking at what the Americans are doing. The Americans are now talking of legislation to allow illegally obtained evidence to be considered admissible if obtained in good faith. Such a step would increase the investigative powers of the AFP, and would cost nothing at all. Another step could be taken to assist the police. Some years ago the police could use a general search warrant, but that has now been taken away. That warrant was given to selected members of the then Narcotics Bureau to enter premises if there were strong grounds to suspect that drugs were on the premises. We must get on with telephone tapping powers and with legislation to give the police access to taxation records. We must have more vehicles to enable the police to operate. We must consider additional powers such as those I have mentioned. We must also make more effort in the surveillance and capture of illegal immigrants. Powers are needed to X-ray people who are suspected of bringing drugs into the country. We have to be able to put more AFP officers into the drug capitals of the world and we must close the Taillon drug loophole that has been so neglected by this Government. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member's time has elapsed. It being 10.15 p.m., I shall report progress. The Deputy Chairman having reported accordingly- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(10.15) —It is not often in this House that we have the opportunity to discuss the very fine South Australian town of Murray Bridge, which happens to fall within my electorate. It is one of the finest towns in South Australia, and indeed throughout Australia. It is extremely well managed by its council under the leadership of Ray Helps, the Mayor, and Ken Coventry, the District Manager. That having been said, it must be admitted that Murray Bridge is a town which at the moment is enduring certain local difficulties. Those local difficulties more than anything revolve around the problem of unemployment. That unemployment in turn is caused by the decline in the rural economy and in the small business sector throughout Australia, and also by a fairly rapidly growing population in Murray Bridge for which jobs are not easily available. The South Australian Housing Trust has been building new houses in Murray Bridge and moving people there. I have no objection to that course, but it must be pointed out that many of those people on arriving in Murray Bridge find no jobs available in the town. If they are to get work, they have to travel all the way back to Adelaide day by day, and for many of those people that is too expensive a proposition. What the State Government at the very least has learned to do is to relate economic, housing and population development to the capacity of a community to provide jobs. The people in the Murray Bridge community who are most severely affected by these developments are without doubt the young people. The level of youth unemployment there is extremely high, and where there are major problems in the town they are primarily, but not exclusively, found among young people. That is understandable. The young unemployed have nothing to do, they have nowhere in particular to go, and after a while begin to lose hope and confidence in their ability to progress. No group is more seriously affected by that phenomenon than are the young Aboriginal people in Murray Bridge, who have the added disadvantage of fearing some degree of discrimination against them, be it real or unreal. It is a matter which undermines their self-confidence. In February 1985 I launched International Youth Year in Murray Bridge and in my speech called on the community of Murray Bridge to get together to set up some form of youth advisory committee to help young people in that town. Although that proposal has been discussed over the last 18 months, so far it has not proved possible to put together a particular package. However, I am encouraged by the activities of a Mr Terry Andrews supported ably by Peter Lewis, the State member for Murray-Mallee, who represents Murray Bridge. They have called a public meeting on 21 October at which the issues of the youth of Murray Bridge will be discussed. Their proposal at the meeting will be to establish a youth resource centre to provide easy information to young people, to help them build their confidence and to help them get jobs, find things to do and get to know each other. One sensible proposal that has been put forward is that such a centre could be community funded and community based. That will have to be examined. An alternative has been put forward in the Federal Government's so-called Priority One program. Most of us assume that the Priority One program is simply a public relations exercise to win votes for the Government. This example will be a test of the veracity of that program. If the Government is for real about Priority One, perhaps it should nominate Murray Bridge as one of the towns for a CES youth access centre. So far there are only 37 such centres designated in Australia, three of which are in South Australia, all in Labor held areas-Whyalla, Elizabeth and Port Adelaide. I would like to believe that the Government would look seriously at the problems of Murray Bridge and would choose that town as the site for a further CES youth access centre if it is not possible at this stage to put together a community based youth resource centre for the town. In conclusion, Murray Bridge is a very fine town and in the words of the song it is `my kind of town'. I hope that honourable members will take the opportunity to go there. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(10.22) —The central and south-west Pacific Ocean is home to a number of small nations. Almost every one of them has laid claim to a large exclusive economic zone. I name just four of these states-Niue, with an area of 259 square kilometres and a population of 2,000 people; Tuvalu, formerly the Ellice Islands, which is 26 square kilometres and has 8,000 people; the Cook Islands, which has 240 square kilometres and 18,000 people; and Kiribati, formerly the Gilbert Islands, which has just 823 square kilometres and a population of 66,000 people. Including its exclusive economic zone, Kiribati is wider than the continent of Australia. It covers 3.5m square kilometres of ocean straddling the Equator and the international date line. Kiribati is indeed poor. Its 66,000 people have an annual per capita income of only $A400 and total government spending is about $A16.2m a year. Each of these nations has little paid employment. Most of the people have low cash incomes and in some cases insufficient food and fresh water. They have few schools and hospitals and limited internal travel systems. Each nation has received its independence within the last 10 years. Until recently, Western nations have been disinterested in their development. In the meantime, the Soviet Union's presence has grown. Its facilities at Cam Ranh Bay are an expression of its military presence. The General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Mr Gorbachev, spelled out the Soviet claim to a major political role in the Pacific in his Vladivostok speech last month. The conclusion of a fishing agreement last year between the Soviet Union and Kiribati served to remind Western strategic planners of the importance of this region to international security. Discussions between Kiribati and the Soviet Union to renew the fishing agreement are now under way. This agreement did not include access to port facilities or aircraft landing rights, but these rights and facilities have been sought and may be granted elsewhere. In Vanuatu, for example, the Government has been negotiating a fishing deal with the Soviets for some months in which these matters have apparently been canvassed. Soviet trade officials recently visited Fiji for trade talks. These commercial openings and opportunities no doubt give the Soviets welcome opportunities to develop political relations in the region. Vanuatu has established diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union in recent months and maintains diplomatic links as well with a number of Soviet satellites, including Cuba and Libya. Australian aid to the region is about $50m a year and Japanese aid is growing rapidly to about $40m. But these proud people do not want to be beggars or dependants. Even well intentioned aid, given in a paternalistic way, can antagonise them. A former Kiribati Secretary for Natural Resources, Omote Tong, told the Sydney Morning Herald on 1 October 1986 that: The general impression of Australians is of neo-colonialism. He contrasted Australian `arrogance' with Japanese `sensitivity' to island customs. What can Australia do? Money alone is not just the answer. We do not want to steal the islanders' culture or take away their self-respect. But we do need to help the small states to help themselves. More small scale aid projects aimed to help their people to develop are needed. More human resource development is required. One example might be a pre-matriculation preparatory year to train students for entrance into tertiary studies and government administration. Assistance could be provided to non-government bodies to develop managerial and commercial skills. Often frustration levels are high in the islands, particularly when bureaucratic procedures for our larger aid projects drag on for years. Recent attempts by Kiribati to show a group of aid donors what it wanted and by Tuvalu to set up a trust fund to provide a continuing revenue source should be encouraged strongly with funding. The people of these small Pacific nations are generally Christian and certainly pro-Western. They are not pro-communist, or even radical, but they are proud of their heritage. Every effort should be made to show the Pacific island people that Australia's concern is genuine. We must give aid of a relevant nature and help their involvement in democratic institutions so that they themselves can manage their own development with dignity. Mr BURR(Lyons)(10.25) —Democracy is the defender of the great human freedoms-freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of worship and freedom to think and conduct one's personal affairs according to one's personal moral beliefs. Those freedoms are cherished by all enlightened liberal societies. The fact that such freedoms are available to its citizens distinguishes a democratic society from a totalisation society. Whenever individual citizens are denied the opportunity to exercise their own conscience on matters of personal belief, democracy itself it placed at risk. As citizens of a liberal democracy country, all of us in this place have the onerous responsibility to defend those great freedoms for the benefit of all Australians. It is for that reason that the Liberal Party of Australia strongly opposes compulsory unionism. Compulsion in such matters denies individuals the opportunity to exercise their consciences or free choice. It is pointless claiming that all Australians can exercise their own choice, when the choice is between joining a union or not having a job. We are on the point of totalitarianism when compulsion on such matters of conscience and free choice is demanded by Governments. That is now happening. Specifications laid down by the Victorian Road Construction Authority state: The project site agreement requires all labour engaged at the work site to be a member of the appropriate union. All drivers delivering materials within the project site limits shall be a member of the appropriate union and shall carry evidence of their membership. These conditions are laid down by the Victorian Government. Our own apathy has allowed such a fundamental freedom of choice to be denied to millions of Australians. But if we are to sustain a liberal democratic society in Australia, such denials of individuals free choice cannot be tolerated any longer. The October 1944 conference which formed the Liberal Party laid down a number of principles that would guide the Party, and I quote some of those principles: A free and Liberal Australian democracy shall be maintained by: (a) Parliament controlling the executive and the law controlling all. (b) Freedom of speech, religion and association. (c) Freedom of citizens to choose their own way of living and of life, subject to the rights of others. (d) Protecting the people against exploitation. (e) Looking primarily to the encouragement of individual initiative and enterprise as the dynamic force of reconstruction and progress. If Australia in 1986 is to lift itself above mediocrity that dynamic force of individual initiative and enterprise must be released and not squashed by a plethora of government and union rules and regulations. Australia has reached a point of near economic and social destitution because individual enterprise has been stifled. Not only has that soul-destroying process retarded our economy, but it has also at the very heart of much of the industrial disruption experienced in the past. Governments and unions must get off the back of the Australian people and allow our citizens to fulfil their full potential. Compassion for our fellow human beings demands nothing less. Mr GRACE(Fowler)(10.28) —I wish to raise a matter that a constituent of mine, Mrs Dries, of Ashcroft, has raised with me. It concerns her husband, Joseph Dries, who suffers from Alzheimers disease. Mr Dries is a patient of the Delany Hall Nursing Home, Jersey Avenue, Mortdale, which is a division of Aspic Holdings Pty Ltd and I believe that that home has not fulfilled its duties to care for Mr Dries. Let me quote to honourable members from two letters that were sent to Mrs Dries on 16 and 19 September. The first one says: I am writing to you in regard to the fee increase you will have noted in this month's account . . . The fee rise will appear more severe than it is in reality as there is a backdate of the increase to include 15 days of the month of September. I would like to take this opportunity to remind you that this is a Governmental increase. The second letter reads: I regret to inform you that due to serious cash flow problems, fees for all patients will be paid one month in advance. This will take effect form 1.10.86. I thank you in anticipation . . . Both of those letters were signed by Mr F. S. Moschella, the administrator of the Delany Hall Nursing Home. This man could not tell the truth if he tried. This ghoul states that he is suffering from a cash flow shortage-what rubbish! It is obviously the only company which does not have a budget plan. Considering that there are 64 patients, each paying around $1,780 per month that is a total of $106,200 per month and $1.2m a year. I would not mind a cash-flow shortage like that. Mr Moschella claimed that the money had to be paid on 1 October and a backdate of 15 days was to be included, which was a governmental increase. He must be joking! It was not a governmental increase at all. As well as sending those letters, he sent a bill for $1,588.53 which had to be paid by 1 October. Mr Dries's daughter questioned this and spoke to the administrator, Frank Moschella, who said: `Yes, that's right, it includes a bill for $515.30 that was not paid-it was from June last year'. Let me say that this cheat has been caught out. The cheque for $515.30 was drawn by Mrs Dries on 12 June and it was cashed on 19 June. The cheque number was 393268. Mr Moschella, alluding to the matter in a roundabout way, then went on to say that if the bill was not paid Mr Dries would be removed from the nursing home, virtually thrown out into the street. Perhaps this charlatan is the one who should be thrown out into the street and out of the industry. I made inquiries with an officer of the Department of Community Services. When Frank Moschella's name was mentioned, the officer's response was: `Oh no, what's this dill up to again? Yes, we know him, he is well known to us. He is one of the sleaziest and slyest nursing home operators in the business'. That says a lot for Frank Moschella. Mr Moschella is a member of the Nursing Homes and Private Hospitals Association of Australia. I hope they know how crooked this ghoul is. Fancy threatening to remove a sick man from a home-a man who barely knows what his name is-for not paying a bill which in fact has been paid! Only last night-this demonstrates the concern of this home in looking after its patients-Mr Dries was reported missing from the hospital and was discovered at 8.30 p.m. wandering the streets of Peakhurst five kilometres away from the home. That is really looking after the patients! Let me tell honour- able members the amount of money that Mr and Mrs Dries have to pay. Mr Dries's fortnightly pension of $234 goes to the home and an extra amount of $120 has to be paid to the home from Mrs Dries's salary, plus the Government subsidy of $42.80 per day, which is a grant total of $1,766.40 per month. The misinformation campaign waged by this inept, confused idiot has failed miserably. Mr Moschella claims that there will be no increase in nursing home subsidies by the Government. He would be aware, as he is the most cunning operator in the business, that the Government will reassess the subsidy in November. He has harassed and threatened elderly people to get more money out of them to line his own pockets. I am not denying that costs have risen, but I object to the fact that this ratbag has run his operation in such a way. Frank Moschella and the company he represents should be made accountable for their actions. I have not finished pursuing Mr Moschella. I will raise the matter again in the near future. I hope that all people like Frank Moschella involved in the nursing home industry are brought to justice and receive their just desserts. I hope also that the Nursing Homes and Private Hospitals Association of Australia takes notice of him. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr DRUMMOND(Forrest)(10.34) —The House would be aware that something is wrong with the southern bluefin tuna industry in Australia. A series of tactical blunders and plain irresponsibility on the part of the Department of Primary Industry in various negotiations has seen the catch of southern bluefin tuna diminish from 21,300 tonnes in 1982-83 to a quota of 11,500 tonnes this year. In comparison, the Japanese catch was 24,335 tonnes in 1983, yet Japan has agreed to reduce its take to only 19,500 tonnes this year. It is obvious that Australia is giving everything and Japan very little. It is easy for this group of ivory-tower public servants to see the arguments in black and white, but I can assure the House that out in the field the decision to introduce a quota and then to allow transference rights has decimated the infrastructure of the industry and at the same time has built-up the strength of our overseas competitors. In Albany, Hunts Foods Pty Ltd closed down last year, sacking a work force of over 150 people. The decision to restrict tuna catches was the final nail in the coffin of that company. At the same time as the Government contributes to the closure of a cannery, our canned tuna imports continue to rise. Whose side is the Government on? Albany has now lost more than three-quarters of its tuna fleet. In 1982-83 it had a fleet of approximately 72 vessels, and it has now been reduced to 16 vessels. When an industry losses its infrastructure it is not economic to recommence that industry at a moment's notice. The fishing industry is not represented only by fishermen. The industry comprises mechanical and refrigeration engineers, shipbuilders, processing factories, packaging and sales distribution, and even props-up a bevy of public servants. The fish processing industry falls into the category of adding value to our exports. It is a section of the industry which has a high capital involvement and should not be disregarded in essential decision making, as this Government continues to do. It is against this background that I want to describe to the House an arrangement between Japan, New Zealand and Australia which the short-sighted public servants in Canberra are thrilled about. Last week Japan, Australia and New Zealand wound up negotiations on access and quotas to prevail in the southern bluefin tuna industry. As the argument goes, Australia has been catching too many immature southern bluefin tuna and this has caused a depletion in stocks. Australia is geographically positioned in the fishing grounds where immature tuna swim and our fishing fleet is geared-up for polling the smaller fish. The Japanese, with their long liners, are geared-up for catching the larger fish. This year the Japanese industry agreed to pay around $830 per tonne for Australian fishermen not to catch fish. In effect, Australian fishermen will be happy to surrender 3,000 tonnes of their quota for doing nothing. I am glad to say that this option is not being taken up by the Albany tuna boat owners, which will mean that they may still have an industry left in a few years. It is one thing for the Government to pay its producers to stay out of an industry, but it is quite a different matter for another government to pay Australian producers to stay out of our own industry. Why does the Japanese industry not pay us to totally get out of tuna fishing? At special devaluation rates it would cost only about $A12m each year and the Japanese could have the whole world's southern bluefin tuna catch to themselves, and we will import what we need. Why do we not look around for other industries to give away? It is all really too silly for words. This is not a decision from which the Department of Primary Industry should have stood at arms length. It is a decision that the Government should have a right to determine on behalf of all those involved in the industry, such as the food processors and the various service industries. Many industries will be affected by nobbling the quotas on southern bluefin tuna. In effect, it will mean that canneries will continue to import fish to maintain their operations, as they have done since the introduction of quotas in 1983. The joke is that we now import about 3,000 tonnes of frozen fish to can because domestic supplies are denied by government agreements. Even after we have canned those fish we still import more canned tuna for domestic consumption. This is a time when the Government must stand up for the rights of the industry. Australia should not be the bunny all the time. I know that there are convincing arguments for restricting the Australian catch; arguments mainly from experts who confound the industry. There is no doubt that we must manage our southern bluefin tuna sources at sustainable levels, but I believe that it is total sovereign irresponsibility to give an inch when our trading partners do not. The Japanese catches are open to question. They are unshackled by Government regulations and while we have halved our catch for their interest, they have reduced their catch by a paltry 10 per cent. This Government has been pathetic in the extreme and I hope that it takes seriously what the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has had to say about incompetents in government service losing their jobs. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(10.39) —This evening I want to express some concern that I have about the evidence that exists concerning the degree of speculation against the Australian dollar generally through the foreign exchange markets. A fairly rough method can be used to determine the extent of the turnover of foreign exchange through the foreign exchange market that is necessary to support legitimate transactions through the balance of payments. I know that this rough method is not necessarily foolproof. I do not know of any particular approach that could be foolproof, because any one transaction involving exports or imports of either goods or services or capital movements generally sets in train a series of exchange transactions, especially to provide cover for some types of risks. Those transactions that are then set in train can range from forward trading hedges to swaps; for example, various types of option arrangements can exist. Let us take, for example, the month of June and look at the balance of payments transactions during that month. In order to do that, we need to look at the exports and imports of commodities, services credits, services debits, transfer credits, transfer debits, and then the balance on capital account as well. The total of legitimate transactions through the balance of payments comes to just over $9,000m for that month. During June, there were 20 trading days for the foreign exchange market. If one divides 20 trading days into the total volume of turnover that would have been the minimum necessary in order to support those legitimate transactions through the balance of payments, the amount comes to $456m per day. That is a pretty critical figure, because I am sure it will surprise honourable members to know what the actual volume of foreign exchange transactions on a daily basis was. I have indicated that the volume necessary to support legitimate transactions through the balance of payments was less than $500m per day. The actual volume of foreign exchange transactions was just under $17,000m per day. When I saw that figure come out I was stunned, as I think everyone should be. That indicates the situation that exists in Australia now. If there were any doubts on the part of any people that there are operators in the foreign exchange markets who, to a very large extent, have speculated against the Australian dollar, I think those figures should disabuse them of those doubts. As a result of increasing concern being expressed about the possible extent of that speculation, honourable members will be aware of the fact that more recently the value of the Australian dollar is said to have stabilised. Why has it stabilised? One of the main reasons is that the speculators have turned their attention now to gold and silver, and they are speculating against them. We see the changes that are taking place on a daily basis in the prices of gold and silver. A fair amount of equity capital is coming into Australia at present as well, to take advantage of our local financial and share market circumstances. So the speculators are very selective. The last point that I want to make in connection with that matter is that through world foreign exchange markets we have now reached the point where the daily foreign exchange turnover is $300 billion. In 12 months that has increased from $150 billion per day, a sum which is vastly in excess of the amount that is needed to support legitimate foreign exchange transactions which are necessary to support international trade and international capital movements. There are international financial institutions which have the capacity to mobilise and move vast sums of money in order to speculate through those foreign exchange markets. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(10.44) —Tonight I would like to tell the Parliament of a problem experienced by a citizen and involving the Department of Social Security and Telecom Australia. In April 1985, a constituent left Hervey Bay to live within the Fisher electorate. In moving, he notified Telecom of his new address and applied for a telephone in the area. At the same time, he personally visited the offices of the Department of Social Security in Maryborough to see whether the phone rebate could continue on his new service. He was assured that this would apply automatically and that the rebate would continue in his favour. Unfortunately, this turned out to be far from the truth. In November 1985, following a change in my constituent's economic circumstances, he approached the Department of Social Security to have his pension increased. Imagine his surprise when he was advised that, instead of getting more due to his lower income, he was told that he would lose $22 a fortnight. Understandably, my constituent did not let the matter rest. After approaching his accountant, he was told that, according to the guidelines, the Department of Social Security was short changing him by $22 a fortnight. After telephoning the Department's Nambour office to complain, it was admitted that a mistake had been made and that he would be reimbursed. In due course, $180 was forwarded to him. It would be logical to assume that, by this time, the matter had been settled. However, this was not the case. Telecom entered the picture again, this time writing to advise that my constituent was not now entitled to a telephone rebate. Apparently, the error made by the Department of Social Security, which resulted in a pension reduction, now meant that the phone rebate was also cut. Once again, my constituent contacted Telecom to clarify the matter. Telecom revealed a communication breakdown between it and the Department of Social Security. The latter apparently advises when to cut out the pensioner rebate but never notifies the reverse situation. Because of bungling, a citizen not only had his pension reduced instead of increased but also had his phone rebate stopped improperly. Unfortunately, Telecom, through not being advised by the Department of Social Security of its error, withheld the entitlement for nine months. Telecom and the Department of Social Security must get their act together; they must learn to talk. People's interests cannot be ignored or treated with contempt. As my constituent said to me in a letter: If you allow anyone to walk over you once, then the second time doesn't seem to hurt as much and the third time you don't even notice. Telecom and the Department of Social Security need to reappraise their attitude and approach to people urgently. Until they do so, they, as part of the public sector, will continue to be viewed as large, impersonal, inefficient and acting as a law unto themselves. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(10.47) —The annual reports for 1985-86 of the Australian Archives and the Advisory Council on Australian Archives were tabled in this chamber recently. As honourable members may be aware, I am a member of the Advisory Council. These reports revealed the wide range of interests which the Australian Archives services. Reading the reports, I cannot help but be struck by the scale of the contribution which the Archives makes to efficient government administration. There is a tendency to perceive the function of the Australian Archives as simply to provide access services to members of the public who are wanting to see government records for research purposes of one kind or another. This is a most important function, servicing a steadily growing demand; but there is another important function, namely, that of providing economic, cost-effective services to all other agencies of the Federal Government. It is this to which I want to refer briefly. There now exists an enormous volume of government records-not just paper but also computer tapes, maps, microfilms, sound recordings and even objects. This material is not kept for the sake of it; it is essential for administration. It records activities of governments; it helps people establish their rights and entitlements and has considerable educational value. If these records are not economically stored, not destroyed when no longer needed, not easily retrievable, and not available for use when required, cost penalties must follow. By a series of management initiatives, the Archives is seeking to reduce and eventually to avoid these penalties. I read from the Australian Archives' report that the Archives is now managing over 400 kilometres of records in its repositories and bulk stores alone throughout the country, is providing for the orderly disposal of more and more records and handled well over half a million records through its lending service for Commonwealth agencies during 1985-86. I note also that the Archives has been managing the massive and unique undertaking of surveying all Commonwealth Government records in Australia and overseas. The survey data gathered will provide a basis for more effective arrangements for the control, accessibility, retention or destruction, custody, storage and conservation of records as well as assisting the internal management of agencies. The data will be drawn on to help the Archives to plan its bulk storage facilities and services to Government agencies. In these areas, the Archives is very much in the business of cutting costs. It provides an essential underpinning for the business of Government and its work involves assisting members of the public who have an interest in or need to learn about the activities of governments. I am sure that honourable members will agree that these areas of efficiency and economy are worth commenting on in the current financial climate. As a member of the Advisory Council on Australian Archives, I think it is important to recognise this behind the scenes work of the Australian Archives which is not widely known or strikingly visible outside departments and other agencies of the Commonwealth Government. The term of the members of the Advisory Council has expired and I should like to pay tribute to the members who have served on it. My term has a little time still to run. I pay particular tribute to the staff of the Australian Archives, especially the Director, Mr Brian Cox. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(10.52) —I believe that the Australian people need to know why Mysoon Shaath was in Australia recently. Mysoon Shaath is a member of the Palestinian National Council and a member of the General Union of Palestinian Women. I shall quote to the House statements that she made in Melbourne. A article about her visit reads: `We refuse to be called terrorists,' she said yesterday at the Palestine Information Office in Melbourne. `We are the most peace-loving people in the world.' The article continues: She did not think the Istanbul synagogue and Karachi airport massacres, which have been linked to Arab terrorist groups, necessarily harmed their cause. `I'm saying we are against terrorism, and against the murder of innocent civilians,' she said. `But whenever these incidents happen, they say it's a Palestinian who did it. I say ask yourself why he did it.' This lady admitted that the acts were carried out by the Palestinian Liberation Organisation. The Palestinian National Council is the so-called Palestinian National Parliament in Exile. It has representatives of guerilla trade unions, trade and student groups and other groups as well as its members. The PNC created the PLO in 1964. As the House knows, Yasser Arafat is the PLO leader. In addressing the Palestinian National Council on 29 November 1984 he offered his resignation to the Speaker of the PNC. The Speaker of the so-called Parliament reported Arafat to the National Council and Arafat described his resignation. The article states: `It is only you, the representatives of the Palestinian people, who decide whether or not to remove me.' The auditorium of the Royal Cultural Centre, where the PNC is holding its 17th session, then erupted into thunderous applause and chants of: `We have no leader but you. We want you and only you.' That was the reaction of the PNC. The article continues: Mr Arafat, 55, was hauled from his third-row seat by men from the Palestinian refugee camps and the Israeli-occupied West Bank. They carried him on their shoulders to the stage amid shouts of: `You stay, you stay.' I think that there is a clear link established between the PNC and the PLO and the way in which these organisations interrelate. In the Senate Estimates Committee, Senator Peter Baume questioned officers of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs about the entry of Mysoon Shaath into Australia. A Mr Harris said: There is no reason to believe that that person required any greater scrutiny than that accorded to the normal visitor. I think it is time that Australians knew what the security arrangements are for visitors entering Australia. I do not care whether they are members of the PLO, the Irish Republican Army or any other terrorist group. We must have rules that are understood clearly by Australians and applied by officers of the various departments. I do not know who makes the decisions on entry. I do not know whether they are security decisions that are made by internal intelligence, the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs or the Department of Foreign Affairs. I have made inquiries of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and I have been told to make a request under freedom of information. I know how long that will take and how little information that process will yield. I shall conclude my speech by quoting to the House remarks made by Mysoon Shaath in an interview with Bill Hartley on 13 September 1986 on radio 3CR. Bill Hartley said: Mysoon Shaath is on the line now from the PLO information office which itself has been in the news. Good morning Mysoon. He continued: I think that you had better tell us about the General Union and its place in the PLO. The lady replied: Well it's one of the bases of the PLO and I am a member of the Executive Committee of the General Union of Palestinian Women. There is a clear link there between the PLO and the General Union of Palestinian Women. I am not accusing this woman of being a terrorist, but she could easily have been a terrorist on an active mission. The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs did not appear to know about her entry into Australia and no one seems to care. It is time that the so-called Security Committee of the Cabinet considered these matters. One of its own members has been threatened, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford). It is time also that the Australian people know what the Government's security rules are. I call on the Government to establish clear guidelines for security and for the entry of potential terrorists. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(10.58) —I should like to make a few points in the couple of minutes that remain this evening on coalition policy which seems to be developing on labour market deregulation. I am concerned about how this policy will affect small country town economies. The proposal seems to be that those who employ fewer than 50 people can opt out of awards and conditions under the present arbitration system. Mr Cadman —You are doing it. You know that you are doing it. Mr SNOW —I point out to the honourable member that the two-tier system does not involve the opting out that is proposed by the Opposition. The proposal will hit employees, particularly in small country towns. One can imagine an employee who is locked into a position, perhaps in a shop, and the less scrupulous employer who perhaps says: `Look, I am sorry, I can only afford to pay you $10 above the dole. You can take it or leave it. I cannot afford to pay you any more'. Think of the position that the employee would feel himself or herself to be in when faced with that sort of challenge by an employer. Employers will be hit also by the proposal. Most employers appreciate a fair and minimum wage, as I did when I was in business. Let us hark back to 1907 when Mr Justice Higgins made an historic decision on clothing needs, food needs and minimum frugal comfort. Are we to return to the days of pre-1907? I believe sincerely that employees throughout Australia will recognise that such a policy would be wrong. It is our duty as a Government to make clear the Opposition's policy. If implemented, it would take Australia back to the last century in industrial regulations and rules. Most of all, the proposal would hit local economies. If employers are to reduce the incomes of their employees, the family take-home pay will be reduced substantially. This will mean that local spending will drop. This is a lesson that we have learnt time and time again. Let us not depart from the historic 1907 Higgins decision. Let us reject the proposals of the Liberal Party and the H. R. Nicholls Society to return to such measures. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11 p.m.